Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant acquired freezer as part of property purchase / Fridge stopped working and technician determined fault in compressor / Respondent as manufacturer confirmed fridge was irreparable but refused to compensate as fridge was received through private sale / Applicant claimed repair costs / Held: Applicant may bring a claim against the manufacturer though not the original supplier in trade / Respondent liable to pay reduced value of fridge based on its remaining expected life at time of failure, plus technician's fee to assess problem / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2892.05 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant bought Respondent's cleaning business / Two months post-purchase, business' client stopped Applicant's cleaning services / Applicant claimed Respondent knew client did not intend to continue contracted cleaning services / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price and other costs / Held: no tangible evidence to show Respondent knew, was told, or had reason to believe client was going to discontinue cleaning services / Applicant failed to establish Respondent's misrepresentation or misleading conduct / Applicant worked on site for two months which means the client knew of business handover to new ownership / Cancellation not linked to Respondent's proper handover if it were established / Respondent's counterclaim for compensation on reputational damage, stress and harassment dismissed / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a dress from Respondent / Applicant wore the dress and noticed a tear along a seam / Applicant informed Respondent and dress was replaced and a $100 voucher provided / Applicant later noticed a tear in the replacement dress in the same place as the original dress / Applicant took dress back to Respondent / Respondent advised it would not be refunding price because dress had been damaged / Applicant claimed for a refund stating the dress was not of acceptable quality / Respondent stated that the Applicant did not have the right to reject the dress as it has been damaged whilst in her possession / Held: dress was not of acceptable quality / However, Applicant not entitled to remedy / Respondent produced evidence that the dress was damaged including dirt marks and burn marks within lining / Damage consistent with the dress being worn and subjected to inappropriate treatment / Evidence indicated dress was damaged through wea…

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent share a boundary fence / Builder's report showed fence needed repair or replacement in near future / Parties discussed repairs and Second Respondent agreed to repairs or replacement / Second Respondent informed Applicants they could not contribute financially / Applicants claimed $1000 as contribution to fence repairs / Held: no Fencing Act notice was served by Applicants on Respondents prior to commencing work and no evidence that fence required such immediate work as to forgo notice / Fencing Act applied as no agreement between parties on costs / Applicants had accepted Respondent only agreed to fence being repaired or replaced / Applicants’ notice was served after work completed / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant was engaged to re-roof Respondent's house / Applicant quoted $40,607.78 for the re-roofing / Respondent paid $26,060.78 / Applicant claimed $14,547 as well as $5,708.76 for scaffolding costs, $641.66 for interest and $3,450 for debt collection fees / Respondent claimed work was not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent stated there were multiple dented roofing sheets, jagged rough cuts, gulley too wide, pipe broken and internal damage to the ceiling / Held: Applicant confirmed they had remedied the failures / Applicant's claim for scaffolding, debt collection and interest was not accepted / $14,547 remained outstanding by Respondent, however $6,250.00 was deducted for damage caused during re-roofing / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,297 / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented condition of vehicle / Applicant claimed refund of price paid and compensation for parts and labour / Held: Respondent misrepresented condition of vehicle to Applicant / Vehicle had a body swap and it is not possible to achieve certification / Vehicle not roadworthy / Applicant entitled to damages as a result of misrepresentation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $16,500 / Applicant ordered to return vehicle to Respondent upon receipt of reimbursement / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants engaged Respondent as a maternity matron / Respondent was to care for newborn, prepare food, and support the mother / Fee was $380 per day / Agreement required 24/7 service / Due to a family death, the Respondent informed Applicants they could not work night shifts or start on the agreed date / Applicants claimed Respondent breached the contract and sought refund of bond, postpartum meal costs, and filing fee / Held: Applicants entitled to bond refund / Postpartum meal costs were not a consequential loss caused by the Respondent / Loss mitigated by hiring another matron / Filing fee could not be awarded in the circumstances / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants’ $2,660.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a freezer from Respondent / Two years and eight months later the freezer failed, resulting in its contents being spoiled / Technician advised freezer had a gas leak and was not worth repairing / Respondent offered to replace freezer, however Applicant declined the offer and requested a refund / Applicant brought claim to recover price paid plus cost of contaminated food / Held: a consumer would expect a freezer to last longer than 2 years and 8 months, regardless of price / Freezer failed to comply with guarantee of acceptable quality / Failure was substantial / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and obtain full refund of $399 / Loss of food stored in freezer was reasonably foreseeable loss / Respondent liable for loss of $200 / Respondent had already paid Applicant $599 in accordance with earlier Disputes Tribunal order, therefore no further payment required / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant sent invoices to Respondent for pruning work carried out in 2022 / Respondent partially paid invoice / Respondent counter-claimed cost of work should not have been more than $20,000 / Applicant claimed unpaid balance / Held: Applicant's work accorded with what it was engaged to do / No agreed price limit on the work / Work was to be billed at cost based on payment to workers / Applicant invoiced in accordance with arrangement in place with Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $20,000 / Respondent's counter-claim dismissed / Claim allowed.

[2024] NZEmpC 167 Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 3 September 2024) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – costs awarded

Objection to valuation by Council – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s19(8)(b) – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

2024] NZEmpC 163 LDJ v EZC (Costs Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 30 August 2024) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – costs awarded.

Negligence / Applicant's employee drove car Applicant owned and had crash with Respondent / Applicant's employee turned left out of driveway and drove up street / Respondent stopped at stop sign on side road intersecting with road Applicant's employee was on / Respondent said Applicant's car was indicating left but she changed her mind halfway through turn causing crash / Respondent said he was stationary when collision occurred / Applicant's insurer held Respondent liable but Respondent refused to pay / Applicant's insurer claimed for damages of $18,119.50 for breach of driver's duty of care / Held: Respondent breached duty of care by failing to wait at stop sign until road was clear and not checking for other road users before entering intersection / Respondent should have been more careful even if Applicant's employee was indicating as she was entitled to right of way / Damage to Applicant's car not consistent with Respondent's version of events / Amount written off vehicle obtained…