Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Insurance /  Insurance Law Reform Act 1977/ Applicant had vehicle insurance with the Respondent / Applicant stated that his 16 year old son drove the car and hit a parked car / Respondent declined claim as there was no cover for under 25 year old drivers / Applicant claimed $16,000 in repair costs / Held: only the Applicant and his wife were named drivers in the insurance contract / Applicant’s son was not named as a driver / Applicant never asked to add names to his insurance policy / Discount for under 25 year drivers did not apply in the Applicant’s insurance policy / Claim dismissed.

Objections to valuations by Council – Rating Valuation Act 1998, s 36 – Time for filing objection enlarged – Further case management directions made – Costs reserved.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant entered into lease agreement with Respondent / Respondent ceased operating / Applicant claimed $30,000 being a proportion of what they paid to fit out unit / Respondent sought $15,122.14 for incurred costs / unit cleaning, repairs and restoration / Held: no inducement to enter agreement by promise that unit leased would be part of food and beverage lane where development would be finished by end of 2021 / Agreement fulfilled by Respondent in providing brand new empty unit / Other Respondent remained personally, jointly and severally liable as guarantor / Applicant breached lease agreement by failing to leave the unit as they found it when lease started / Applicant not entitled to $30,000 claim / Other Respondents ordered to pay Respondent $15,122.14 / Claim dismissed.

Property / Contract / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondents are neighbours and share common boundary / Applicant wished to move old fence to boundary to gain back more land than was rightfully hers / Applicant claimed $1,164.03 contribution to fencing costs / Held: Applicant has not proved on balance of probabilities that there was a concluded agreement about the new fence amounting to a legally enforceable contract / No remedy available under contract law / Letter did not comply with Fencing Act requirements and therefore not a fencing notice / Cost of new fence to remain with Applicant / Tribunal had no jurisdiction to order security camera to be moved / Claim dismissed and struck out.

[2025] NZEmpC 81 Nand v Idea Services Limited (Judgment of Judge M S King, 16 April 2025) STRIKE-OUT – REHEARING – WITHDRAWN PROCEEDINGS – COSTS – application to strike out application to rehear withdrawn application to file challenge out of time – application to file challenge out of time previously withdrawn due to settlement agreement – no basis for rehearing application as no hearing ever happened on original application – application to file challenge out of time cannot be reinstated or refiled because to do so would be an abuse of process in light of the settlement agreement – increased scale costs awarded – no basis for disbursements for out of town counsel – other disbursements awarded on GST exclusive basis

Contract law / Applicant paid Second Respondent $45,600 between 2019 and 2023 / 2nd Respondent repaid $27,100 / Applicant claimed balance of $18500 as loans / 2nd Respondent said only part was loan and counterclaimed $7900 for assistance and accommodation provided to / Held: $10,600 payment in 2019 was reimbursement for immigration support provided by Applicant to Respondent and was not a loan / $20,000 and $15,000 payments in 2023 found to be loans / No evidence of joint venture or agreement to deduct costs / Second Respondent failed to prove entitlement to offset or counterclaim based on support to or agreements with Applicant / No evidence Applicant had agreed payment for assistance or accommodation / Respondent not involved in payments and is not liable / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $7,900 / Claim allowed in part / Counterclaim dismissed.  

Contract law / Applicant owned two rental properties managed by Respondent / Respondent purchased business previous property manager / Respondent deducted fees in accordance with its standard contract / Applicant disputed deductions and believed Respondent had underpaid amount owing / Applicant claimed $1423.99 for underpayment / Held: Respondent’s standard contract did not apply as Applicants had never seen or agreed to it / Despite this, Respondents had paid all rent due under original contract between Applicants and original property managers / Respondent entitled to deduct termination and Tenancy Tribunal fees following tenant’s departure / Respondents overcharged Tribunal fee allowed in contract by $100 / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Traffic Law / Applicant and Respondent’s vehicles were involved in a collision / Applicant and his insurer claimed that the Respondent caused the collision by failing to give way / Applicant sought damages of $10,829.57 / Held: Respondent had an obligation to give way to Applicant’s car and failed to do so, thereby causing the collision / Applicant’s driving did not cause the collision / Applicant and insurer proved that the amount claimed was reasonable for repair costs / Respondent must pay Applicant’s insurer $10,829.57 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent, a self-employed mechanic, to replace leaking O-ring in excavator pump / Respondent repaired excavator without removing pump from machine / Subsequently, the pump suffered a catastrophic failure when the excavator was put under load / Applicant claimed failure was due to Respondent’s improper reassembly / Applicant claimed $25,563.84 cost of replacing pumps / Held: Respondent breached contract by failing to exercise reasonable care and skill in performing repair / Applicant’s repair costs were reasonable but $4,000 deducted for betterment, as the new pump extended the excavator’s lifespan / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $21,563.84 / Claim allowed.

Objections to valuation of property - Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 - Valuations agreed to by consent - No costs order.

Contract / Applicant entered residential building contract with Respondent / Applicant took possession of property but noticed the handbasin in the ground floor single toilet was badly cracked and unusable / Applicant claimed installed product was sub-standard and inferior to other preferred basin / Applicant claimed $100 cost for installing new basin / Held: Applicant agreed to a compact composite basin to be installed / Respondent not liable for installation costs for new handbasin / Applicant failed to prove damaged handbasin was a workmanship issue / Claim dismissed.

(Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 4 April 2025) STRIKE-OUT – DELAY – challenge stayed for almost two years due to unpaid security costs – insufficient explanation for delay to pay security – prejudice caused to defendant – plaintiffs consent to matter being dismissed if no costs ordered against them – challenge dismissed

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicants contracted for the supply and installation of a gazebo at their new home under construction / Final agreed price was $38,842.40 but the contract was not written in a form compliant with residential building work requirements / Applicants paid a $15,000.00 deposit / Terms of the contract excluded any cost for a PS1 / Respondent stated one was not needed due to the gazebo's size/ However, the gazebo had been incorporated into the design for which the Council had issued consent so a PS1 was required / Respondent then sent invoice for PS1 of $2070.00 which the Applicants reluctantly paid / Gazebo was installed and multiple faults were identified immediately / Applicants had to get the manufacturer to remedy the faults and complete construction, as the Respondent would not do it / Applicants claimed refund of $2070 plus costs incurred to remedy the construction defects and complete the construction of the gazebo / Held: Respondent was not entitled t…