Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Consumer / Consumer Guarantees Act / Respondents issued Applicant with a parking infringement notice and fine / Notice and fine were waived but Applicant alleges respondent's appeal system is unsatisfactory / Applicant claims costs for the time and inconvenience of having to deal with the infringement and appeal system / Held - Respondents provided services with reasonable care and skill / Applicant's evidence was also insufficient to show bad faith by respondents / No basis for award of compensation / Claim dismissed.

Objection withdrawn by leave of Tribunal – Ratings Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – No costs order.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were drinking at a mutual friend’s house / Applicant went home and left his vehicle and its key at the friend’s house / Respondent later advised Applicant he had driven the vehicle and damaged it / Applicant claimed for repair costs / Held: evidence indicated Respondent damaged Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent breached his duty of care by causing the damage / Applicant entitled to compensation for the reasonably foreseeable loss incurred as a result of Respondent’s breach / Valuation showed vehicle was worth $7,000.00 before the damage occurred / Cost of repairs quoted as $5,539.78 / Applicant sold vehicle in its damaged state for $1,500 / Deducting the sale price from the vehicle’s valuation meant Applicant incurred a loss of $5,500.00 / Applicant claimed to be compensated $4,999.95, that amount was less than the reasonably foreseeable loss incurred / Respondent ordered to pay $4,999.95 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017/ Applicant purchased a camera system from the Respondent online for $499/ System was misdescribed by the Respondent as a more expensive NVR system with cabling / Applicant was also referred to another listing for a more expensive NVR system as “the same system” and the photos included were for an NVR system with cabling / Applicant was looking to buy a cabled NVR system / Applicant received a system that was not a cabled system / Held: ambiguous and misleading wording and photos, while perhaps inadvertent by the Respondent, amounted to a breach of the implied condition / System received by Applicant was less expensive than the one purchased / Appropriate damages were equivalent to the purchase price / Respondent ordered to pay $499 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant contracted Respondent to move her household goods for $1,710.00 / On the day of the move, a dispute arose regarding the manner in which the Applicant’s goods were handled / Police attempted to mediate the situation, and it was suggested that the Applicant pay only half of the contract price as a settlement / Respondent subsequently invoiced the Applicant for $850.00, which the Applicant paid / Applicant sought $18,642.00 from the Respondent for damages caused to the goods / Held: Respondent complied with the requirements set out in the Act / Claim was threfore statutorily barred / Applicant failed to prove her claim / Matter was settled with accepted discount / Substantive evidence was not obtained until months after the removal / Claim dismissed.

[2024] NZEmpC 162 MAH Enterprisses (Fiji) Ltd v A Labour Inspector (Costs Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 28 August 2024) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – costs awarded.

Contract / Applicant purchased commercial truck recommended to have custom-build deck and toolboxes / Original contractor unable to complete work / Respondent arranged to take on job and sent Applicant quotation which was accepted / Dispute arose regarding pricing and specification of toolboxes / Applicant claimed work completed by Respondent did not match their specifications / Applicant claimed for remedial work costs, various costs and exemplary damages / Held: no settlement agreement reached between parties / Applicant have not proven on balance of probabilities that Respondent breached contract / Respondent clearly communicated design alterations to Applicant / Applicant could not prove noise issue with PTO was outside standard tolerance or that Respondent had caused it / Respondent liable for Applicant's travel and legal costs and amount awarded adjusted to reflect this / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent / Counterclaim allowed in part / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant bought a headstone from company formerly operated by Respondent and now operated by 2nd respondent / Issues with plaque quality following delivery delays / Applicant raised issues with company who made attempts to remedy the plaque / Applicant claimed refund of plaque cost and costs associated with Applicant's attempts to remediate plaque themselves / Held - Respondent not liable as contract formed after headstone business had been sold to 2nd Respondent and plaque not reasonably fit for purpose due to lopsided writing and grave bed not stablised / Also failure by 2nd respondent to ensure work done in agreed timeframe / 2nd respondent's actions amounted to failure of substantial character for purpose of remedies under Consumer Guarantees Act / Claim allowed.   

Appeal challenging the review decision. Sections 75-78, Accident Compensation Act 2011. Whether the Individual Rehabilitation Plan (IRP) finalised by ACC was reasonable and appropriately addressed the appellant’s rehabilitation needs. Held: The IRP was finalised prematurely and did not include all necessary and agreed upon actions for Appellant’s rehabilitation. IRP failed to include referral to pain specialist, general surgeon review, and neuropsychological assessment for cognitive decline. The review decision dated 28 June 2023 is quashed. The appeal is allowed, appellant is entitled to costs.

Negligence / First Respondent crashed into back of Applicant's car after Applicant stopped at traffic lights / First Respondent apologised to Applicant after crash, said brakes weren't working and that he was going to get them checked / Applicants claimed $7161.58 for repairs / Held: Respondent's driving was most likely cause of collision / Respondent could not safely stop which suggested Respondent did not proceed with sufficient caution / Reasonable driver concerned about their brakes would have pulled over and had car checked before driving further / Reasonable driver would have proceeded with utmost caution including ensuring abundance of stopping room between cars ahead / Second Respondent said it identified no issue with First Respondent's brakes / Evidence was insufficient to find issue with brakes or that any issue had been caused by Second Respondent's negligence / Costs claimed were reasonable / Respondent liable to pay $7161.58 to Applicant's insurer / Claim against First Re…

Parking / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant parked his car in a car park controlled by Respondent on a number of occasions / No response from Respondent by way of fines or tickets / Applicant obtained a ticket from Respondent in a different parking space / When the Applicant went online to pay the fine he discovered there were 48 other tickets totalling about $6,615.00 outstanding for which he had received no notice / Applicant filed a claim for a declaration of non-liability of up to $6,615.00 for parking tickets accumulated but not communicated to him by the Respondent /  Held: parking building company arguably has a legitimate interest in de-incentivising parking where no fee was paid in breach of the parking contract / Part of the purpose of a fine for de-incentivising illegal parking was to make the fine known to the person parking illegally, to prevent further breaches / Respondent had not communicated with Applicant about amounts owing and they have mounted significantly …

Consumer / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicants engaged Respondent to concrete their driveway with coloured concrete / Issues with coloured concrete after laying and Respondent made several unsuccessful remediation attempts following expert advice / Applicants claim for cost of remediation of driveway / Held - Respondents liable for remediation costs after trying unsuccessfully to remediate the driveway / Applicants not entitled to full amount claimed as quotes for remediation work showed a lesser amount than claimed was reasonable.

Tort / Nuisance / Applicant and Respondent own neighbouring properties / Applicant claimed Respondent's property were used in prostitution and selling drugs / Applicant experienced harassment and threatening behaviour / Applicant claimed costs of abating nuisance caused by tenants / Held: First and Second Respondent implicitly authorised creation or continuance of nuisance by tenants / Cross-lease relationship between two properties heightened landlord's responsibilities / First and Second Respondent responsible for ongoing nuisance created by tenant / Third Respondent as property manager does not have the same responsibility / First and Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,415.74 / Claim allowed in part.