Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Civil / Contract/ Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant hired Respondent to provide roof repairs / Prospective buyer’s property inspection identified defects in Respondent’s repairs / Respondents claimed the repairs were performed to a reasonable standard in the context of agreement / Other builders had advised the Applicant to replace the roof for a much higher quoted price than the Respondent quoted for repairs / Applicant claimed that Respondent failed to deliver on the purpose of providing sufficient repairs to enable sale of the house as buyer withdrew due to roof defects / The Applicant claimed $12,338 in compensation / Respondent’s counter-claimed for overrun hours to the value of $4,058 / Held: Applicant opted for the cost-effective repair option provided by the Respondent / These roof repairs could not be expected to yield the same quality or saleability as a full roof replacement / Repairs did not represent a substantial failure by Respondents / However aspects of the repa…

Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 / Applicant was driving in a 100km/h speed zone when two dogs owned by Respondent ran onto the road and collided with Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent admitted responsibility explaining he did not close his gate properly / Applicant’s insurer repaired Applicant’s vehicle and claimed compensation for the repair costs from Respondent / Held: Respondent breached his duty of care by failing to keep his dogs under control / Damage to Applicant’s vehicle was consistent with the collision / Repair costs were reasonable and properly evidenced / Respondent ordered to pay $7,175.40 to Applicant’s insurer / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants brought vehicle from Respondent / Applicants said vehicle damaged before sale but was not disclosed to them / Respondent attempted repairs but Applicants unsatisfied / Applicants claimed $3,819.16 in damages / Held: Implied guarantee under CGA that vehicle be of acceptable quality and free from defects / No issues Respondent’s paint job / No noticeable difference in paint colour on bonnet and on guards / Vehicle advertised as not involved in any accidents so damage is not of acceptable quality under CGA / Compressor had cosmetic damage but functional / Damaged trims in bonnet likely result of accident so not of acceptable quality / Unable to determine dent was present at sale / Respondent had opportunity to repair but failed to do so / Applicants entitled to repair costs for damaged compression and trims / Respondent to pay Applicants $2,142.01 / Claimed allowed in part.  

[2025] NZEmpC 138 Soundhomes NZ Ltd v Doughty (Costs judgment of Judge Beck, 7 July 2025) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – indemnity costs denied – respondent’s breaches do not warrant indemnity costs – respondent’s conduct justified an uplift - scale costs amended - costs awarded.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants purchased a property after engaging respondent to conduct a pre-purchase inspection / Inspection was visual and non-invasive / Report noted the roof was “lasting well” and showed some signs of rust / After tenants vacated, Applicants discovered the roof was in state of disrepair and had to be replaced / Applicants claimed the inspection failed to adequately alert them to the roof’s poor condition and sought $29,440 for replacement costs / Held: inspection was carried out with reasonable care and skill, consistent with the limitations of a visual and non-invasive inspection / The report clearly stated its limitations and did not guarantee to identify all defects / No breach of the CGA by respondents / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent’s cars collided at a roundabout / Applicant and his insurer claimed $10,286.73 in damages and Respondent counterclaimed $1,092.50 / Held: on balance of probabilities it was more likely that Respondent caused accident by cutting across Applicant’s path while turning right / Tribunal found photos, impact location and route details supported Applicant’s version of events / Respondent was the negligent driver thus liable for repair costs / Respondent ordered to pay $10,286.73 / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.  

Objections to valuations by Council – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s 19(8)(b) – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Superannuation - costs order following resolution of appeal against Benefit Review Committee upholding decision of Ministry to decline portability payments of Appellant's superannuation. Appeal resolved after Ministry reversed decision under appeal and paid arrears to Appellant. Whether claimed costs were reasonable. Appellant entitled to recover costs of 19 hours 50 minutes for lawyer's work on appeal. Costs to be paid to Appellant's lawyer from Ministry directly. Outcome: appeal resolved, costs ordered to be paid.

Costs of appeal – s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Appellant liable for costs. Outcome: Appeal dismissed. Appellant ordered to pay Respondent $2,196.50 in costs.

[2025] NZEmpC 132 Burgess v Tutton Sienko and Hill Partnership (Interlocutory Judgment (reissued) of Judge KG Smith 1 July 2025) RECALL – mistaken date – date provided should have been a business day – in the interests of justice to recall with a later date as correct date has now passed SECURITY FOR COSTS – financial circumstances of respondent favoured application – respondent was bankrupt reasonably recently – liable for a substantial Authority costs order – security ordered at 50% of likely scale costs to balance interests of both parties

Contract / Respondent’s son studied at Applicant’s school / Respondent has not paid school fees / Applicant hired debt collector to retrieve fees / Applicants claim payment of $22,839.76 for unpaid fees and debt collection services / Held: Respondent to pay remaining amount of fees to Applicant / Respondent entitled to recover reasonable debt collection costs / Respondent to pay Applicant $23,339.76 / Claim allowed.  

Contract / Building / Building Act 2004 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant signed cost-plus contract with Respondent for building works and paid $23,000 deposit / Before building consent was granted, Respondent began constructing retaining walls / Applicant expressed concern about costs, progress and quality / Work took ten weeks and Applicant paid $154,612.09 / Applicant cancelled contract and claimed refund of $23,000 deposit / Respondent counterclaim the right to retain deposit for its loss of profit on cancelled work / Held: retaining wall work required building consent / Respondent breached implied warranties by carrying out building work without consent / Breach was substantial, entitling Applicant to cancel contract / Contract encompassed retaining wall work, even if scope expanded / Applicant validly cancelled contract / Just and practicable to grant refund of deposit upon cancellation as Applicant had already paid for all work completed / Respondent to pay Appl…