Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2025] NZEmpC 122 healthAlliance NZ Limited v Cunningham (Interlocutory Costs Judgment of Judge M S King, 24 June 2025) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – self-represented litigant – indemnity costs not appropriate – costs awarded with adjustments.

Costs on appeal – s 149 Accident Compensation Act 2001. Costs awarded reduced to reflect success on partial basis only. Outcome: Respondent ordered to pay Appellant $885 in costs.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a laptop from the Respondent / After 2.5 years of ownership the laptop had technical issues / Independent report determining the laptop was faulty and irreparable / Applicant claimed refund of $2,297.99 / Held: substantial failure of acceptable quality / Applicant could have reasonably expected the laptop to last approximately 5 years / Too much time had elapsed since purchase for Applicant to obtain full refund / Applicant entitled to recover 60% of the purchase price to account for 2 out of 5 years of use before issues arose / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,400 / Claim allowed in part.

Compensation referral / Committee found three licensees engaged in unsatisfactory conduct in failing to disclose known unconsented works in residential property / defects not disclosed in marketing materials nor to prospective purchaser / successful purchaser at auction seeks compensation for legal costs incurred, having cancelled agreement upon discovering unconsented works / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s931ha, s1105 / Professional Rules 2012, r6.4 / HELD / principles developed by upper courts under Fair Trading Act 1986 relevant / quantum of loss or damage to be awarded, if any, to do justice to parties / purchasers undertook reasonable due diligence of property sold at auction two days after viewing, during COVID-19 restrictions / expenses reasonably and justifiably incurred, with loss arising due to licensees / no evidence of contributory negligence / high level of unsatisfactory conduct / licensees ordered to pay $10,076.44

Contract law / Building Act 2004 / Respondents engaged Applicant and another builder to build home / Labour only contract signed by parties / Respondents then made changes adding completion date and insurance clause / Applicant claimed he never agreed to changes / Respondents felt builders took too long to complete project so cancelled contract / Applicant claimed $7,774 in unpaid fees / Respondents counterclaimed $30,000 for costs incurred and failure to comply with implied warranties / Held: completion date and insurance changes made did not form part of contract / Changes were made after Applicant signed contract / No evidence they saw or agreed to changes / Respondents alleged Applicant overcharged compared to other builder / Respondents did not provide sufficient evidence to prove Applicant’s time recording was inaccurate / Applicant entitled to be paid for hours worked / Insufficient evidence to prove Respondents’ counterclaim that Applicant breached implied warranties / No evide…

Claims for costs following unsuccessful claim for compensation – Public Works Act 1981, ss 84, 90 – Special reasons for not ordering Respondent to pay Claimant’s reasonable costs – Respondent put to costs in presenting response to a claim which lacked any basis in evidence and was declined – Claimant ordered to pay Respondent $50,000.

Contract / Applicant claimed Respondents owned them money from unpaid invoices / Previous Disputes Tribunal order issued in favour of Applicant but enforcement actions have been unsuccessful / Rehearing application granted / Applicant claimed outstanding balance, debt collection costs and liability for Second Respondent / Held: First Respondent breached contract by not paying / External agent’s 25% fee charge for late payment considered penalty clauses and not enforceable / However 12% interest on late payment acceptable as it covered Applicant’s internal debt collection costs / Second Respondent not personally liable for debt as company and director are separate entitles / Second Respondent did not sign contract of guarantee so was not guarantor / Claim allowed in part. 

Objection to valuation by Council – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Compensation referral / unsatisfactory conduct / Committee found licensee misrepresented extent of utility connections and failed to disclose geotechnical report to complainant purchasers / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s72a, s93, s110 / Professional Rules 2012, r5.1, r6.4 / Fair Trading Act 1986, s43 / HELD / principles developed for award of loss or damage under FTA relevant to discretion to award compensation / broad and pragmatic approach taken to determine causal connection between losses claimed and contravening conduct / not open for Tribunal to review finding of unsatisfactory conduct in lieu of appeal to challenge determination / agency’s commission, vendor’s legal costs, complainants’ legal costs and LIM report fees attributable losses to unsatisfactory conduct / claim for loss of growth in property market unsubstantiated / compensation sum to achieve justice to parties / licensee acted in good faith though carelessly / licensees ordered to pay $34,437.38

Consumer law / Applicant purchased $60 worth of diesel from Respondent / Warning light appeared on applicant’s dashboard / A garage confirmed water in the fuel tank and lines / Applicant spent $8,491.47 on repairs and claimed water contamination must have come from the diesel purchased from Respondent / Respondent provided evidence of multiple safeguards against water contamination / Applicant claimed $8,491.47 in repair costs from respondent / Held: Tribunal found applicant could not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the water contamination was caused by diesel purchased from respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Second Applicant purchased vehicle from First Respondent / Vehicle had Warrant of Fitness issued by Second Respondent / Vehicle had defects and Applicants seeks costs / Held: Legislative consumer protection not available for private sales / No obligation on First Respondent to ensure vehicle was mechanically sound / Second Applicant not induced to enter agreement through misrepresentation or mistake / Lack of knowledge on defects does not meet legal criterial of mistake / Onus on Applicant to exercise due diligence / Second Respondent did not use reasonable care and skill when doing WOF inspection / Waka Kotahi report identified faults Second Respondent failed to identify / Second Applicant relied on report and suffered loss / No independent evidence about cost of remedy / Conservative approach to compensation taken / Second Respondent to pay Second Applicant $400 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract law / Applicant parked in a private car park managed by respondent while delivering food / Signs in the car park warned of a $95 infringement fee for unauthorised parking and further liabilities for late payment / Applicant paid the $95 fee but disputed liability for additional late fees and debt collection costs / Respondent counterclaimed for $416.71 in late fees, debt collection costs, and interest / Applicant sought a declaration that he was not liable for $225 in late payment fees / Held: no contract (unilateral or bilateral) was formed between parties by entering the car park; the signage was a warning, not an offer / Initial $95 fee was enforceable under the law of trespass as a reasonable fee for unauthorised use of land / No legal basis for charging additional late payment fees, debt collection costs, or interest under trespass or contract law / Applicant not liable to pay $225 in late payment fees or other amount beyond initial $95 fee, Claim allowed / Respondent’s c…

Contract / Applicant parked in Respondent’s carpark / Applicant made no payment for parking / Respondent sent Applicant parking breach notice and claimed $85 payment  / Applicant paid $17 as Applicant stated that was the actual loss Respondent had gotten from Applicant’s non payment / Respondent arranged debt collection services and requested Applicant to pay $118 for balance of amount owing, debt collection fees and administration costs / Held: Signage in car park was visible so Applicant had accepted its terms when he parked car in car park / The New Zealand Supreme Court has stated in contract a reasonable payment can be requested for a breach to protect legitimate business interests by who the sum is claimed / $85 was a reasonable sum claimed / Claim dismissed / Applicant to pay Respondent $68.00.