Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent were neighbours / Applicant wanted to place fence on boundary between their properties / Applicant claimed $1,545 from Respondent, half the cost of fencing work completed / Respondent denied agreeing towards fencing cost / Held: Applicant unable to prove there was a concluded agreement with Respondent / No adequate fence between the properties / No appropriate notice given by Applicant to Respondent / Respondent not liable for any costs claimed / Claim dismissed.

Penalty / misconduct for tardy estate distribution / mocked LCRO’s apology order / HELD / fourth appearance before Tribunal in five years / practitioner wrote offending apology letter before last Tribunal matter / was warned about suspension / if he had reflected on his then recent behaviour, he could have written a fresh, proper apology / demonstrates a truculent characteristic / suspension is least restrictive option / successive warnings provide relevant context / mitigating factors include attendance of counselling and legal aid work / additional fine would be an ineffective deterrent as shown by accrued fines from previous penalties / apology not ordered as it would be better for practitioner’s and complainant’s interests to let the matter go / Tribunal ordered two months’ suspension / practitioner to pay Standards Committee’s and Tribunal’s costs

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought a car online from Respondents / Applicant claims a full refund of $9000 plus costs incurred from the Respondents due to alleged misrepresentation by the Respondents / Held: There was no misrepresentation by the Respondent that induced the Applicant to purchase car because Applicant had the car checked by a professional mechanic / Claim dismissed.

[2022] NZEmpC 229 AlKazaz v Deloitte (No. 3) Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 9 December 2022) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – no basis for reduction – small uplift granted because of pursuing issues that had been determined.

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / litigation matter / complaint lawyer accused opposing lawyer and her client of lying and misrepresenting / lawyer called opposing lawyer incompetent / tone of lawyer’s communication was disrespectful / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, r 10.1 / HELD / lawyer’s conduct breached r 10.1 / conduct not a threat to the public / lawyer apologised for his conduct / neither High Court or the Court of Appeal found it necessary to make any comment on this conduct / lawyer ordered to pay costs / Committee’s finding of unsatisfactory conduct reversed / section 211(1)(a)  

Gift / Loan / Dispute between Applicant and Respondent whether monetary amounts were a gift or a loan / Applicant alleged he gifted Respondent $38,000.00 and loaned them $25,000.00 (total $63,000.00) / Respondent alleged that Applicant paid them $13,000.00 in cash and $25,000.00 in direct credit / Respondent claimed both amounts were gifts / Applicant claimed for repayment of $25,000.00 / Respondent claimed no repayment and $1265.00 in compensation for legal fees / Held: evidence of timing of transactions and communication between the parties indicated $38,000.00 was given to Applicant by Respondent as a gift / Disputes Tribunal legislation usually excludes claiming of costs / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.  

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Respondent advertised a car online /Applicant purchased the car after test driving it / Applicant was driving the car back to their home when there was an issue with the car / Issue proved to be more expensive than the car was worth / Applicant alleged Respondent misrepresented condition of the car / Applicant claimed refund of $14,250.00 plus $249.80 for road user charges, a total of $ 14,499.80/ Held: Respondent had taken the vehicle to a mechanic prior to the sale/ Respondent supplied the Applicant the service details/ There was no misrepresentation / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport Road User Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent collided at an intersection / Applicant’s insurance company sought recovery of repair costs / Respondent claimed Applicant did not keep a proper look out / Held: each party contributed to collision / Primary responsibility lay with Respondent as it was his decision to park in front of a car to one side, away from direction of travel / Applicant also failed to keep a proper look out / Responsibility lies 60% with Respondent and 40% with Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay $1,175.72 to Applicant’s insurer / Claim granted in part.

01.12.2022 | Judge TK Williams | Section 67 and 231 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 | Costs

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant provided Respondent with valuation / Both parties agreed on price / Respondent’s customer decided not to get goods replaced through Applicant / Applicant claims $23,310.00 in lost profits / Applicant claims Respondent is in breach of contract / Held: Respondents in breach of contract / Respondents liable for Applicant’s loss of profit / Respondents to pay Applicant $15,000.00 / Claims for legal costs and filing fees dismissed / Claim partially upheld.

Contract / Respondent contracted Appellant to supply and install windows and doors for total sum of $30,466.00 / workmen found additional work necessary to fulfil original contract / Respondent and Appellant agreed to extra work being added to contract price / Respondent was unable to get bank loans necessary to fund extra work / Respondent cancelled contract / Appellant claims $3,615.94 for work already done / Respondent claims contract conditional upon financing / Held: Contract is enforceable and is not subject to Respondent’s ability to get financing / Respondent to pay Appellant $3,615.94 / Claim granted.

Costs. Whether Appellant can claim costs for representation by their wife. Appellant could not establish that his wife satisfied all essential elements of what the law presently requires of an advocate. She was supporting her husband as a spouse. Outcome: claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent contracted to install flat pack kitchen and quoted $3,500 for installation / Applicant and Respondent discussed extra time taken for installation / Respondent indicated cost would be 30% more than original quote / Applicant claims final invoice was unreasonable / Held: Terms of the contract should have been expressly clear / Respondent should have ensured that he communicated costs to Applicant / Applicant to pay Respondent $3,000 / claim dismissed.