Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased DIY electric gate motor from Respondent for $676 / Motor supplied pre-wired for battery power with installation instructions and manual showing two different power supply options / Applicant connected motor to AC power supply not battery / Gate did not move and motor smoked when checked / Applicant returned motor / Respondent did not find any problems with motor and returned it / Applicant hired electrician who found motor supplied without cable needed to connect to AC instead of battery / Applicant claims replacement motor, refund of $105 shipping fee and payment for $300 electrician fees / Held: motor supplied acceptable quality under CGA / problems were because it was connected to AC power when wired for battery power / Held: Respondent did not make false or misleading representations when advertising motor /  nothing untrue in the advertising / described as DIY product and came with thorough instructions / Claim di…

Claim for costs - Accident Compensation Act 2001. Amount of costs award for Appellant's advocate considered. Advocate costs award and disbursements awarded. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Review / two findings of unsatisfactory conduct / both parties provided submissions as to the appropriate orders to be made / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 12(a) / section 14(a) / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 6.1 / HELD / complaints process is no substitute for a clam in negligence to be pursued through the courts / proper forum for large compensation claim is the courts / legal executive ordered to pay the sum of $2,000 to the complainant / invoice fee to be reduced by $400 plus GST / fee cancelled for the amendment to the agreement / $1,000 fine / legal executive ordered to pay Law Society the sum of $1,600 as contribution towards costs / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Charges / no case to answer / practitioner charged concerning five elderly clients / Hall v Wellington Standards Committee (No. 2) [2013] NZAR 743 (HC) / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 240A / HELD / necessary for Tribunal to determine whether evidence sufficient to establish charge / basis for misconduct charges not established / no evidential foundation for overcharging / satisfied client competent to give instructions / no jurisdictional impediment to Tribunal hearing remaining unsatisfactory conduct charges / Tribunal may strike out charges that do not justify disciplinary sanction / no disciplinary sanction required / no reasonable basis to find against practitioner on fee complaint / particulars alleging wrong-doing with Powers of Attorney disclose no reasonable cause of action / minor infractions might arise in any busy practice without alarm / all charges dismissed / Standards Committee must pay Tribunal costs / costs between parties reserved

Complaint / Committee decided to take no further action / litigation / complaint opposing lawyer took steps to recover outstanding funds from the complainant / complainant argued that lawyer had no entitlement to fees claimed as he had been conflicted when undertaking work for her / complainant contended that the lawyer should have withdrawn as her counsel when circumstances required him to do so / lawyer argued that his withdrawal from the proceedings was discussed with the complainant and was supported by her / complainant was advised by new solicitor to pay the opposing lawyer’s fees / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 13 / HELD / complainant failed to provide necessary evidence to establish that the lawyer had breached his duties or obligations owed to her or the Court / complainant consistently represented to the lawyer that she would settle his fees on receipt of settlement funds from the proceedings / lawyers are entitled to be paid…

[2022] NZEmpC 69 Alkazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd (Costs Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 22 April 2022) COSTS – proportionality points away from use of the guideline scale – costs awarded.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent in May 2021 /Applicant had finance agreement including breakdown insurance / Applicant had issues with vehicle in July 2021 and it broke down in August 2021 / Applicant completed insurance claim form after advising Respondent of issues with vehicle / Delay in getting vehicle inspected due to Covid Level 4 lockdown in September 2021 / Applicant requested full refund in November after further delays / Vehicle transmission fixed but other issues overlooked and carried out in February 2022 / Applicant seeks to reject the vehicle, cancel the contract and obtain amounts paid to date including refund for breakdown payments and costs for period without car / Was vehicle of acceptable quality, if not was any failure of the guarantee a failure of substantial character / What remedy is available to Applicant and does fact repairs completed affect that remedy / What is payable on the claim / Held: vehicle not as …

Costs decision. Costs awarded on a 2B basis. Outcome: Appellant awarded $7,162.50 in costs.

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action / litigation / complaint regarding fees charged not being fair and reasonable / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9 / rule 9.1 / HELD / time records provided accurate account of the work completed on the file / nature of the work undertaken justifies the deployment of a number of lawyers to work on the file / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Negligence / Respondent collided with Applicant’s taxi / Applicant received an insurance payment for the value of his taxi and other costs / Applicant seeks a further order that the Respondent is liable to pay $12,000 in other losses he claims resulted from the collision / Applicant also seeks repayment of the annual insurance premium he paid to make a claim from the second Respondent /  Held: Primary respondent breached duty of care when they collided with the Applicants taxi / Claim allowed / Respondents’ insurer to pay Applicant $4,797.90 / Claim against the second Respondent dismissed.

Claim for costs, relating to an appeal under the Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether costs, and what amount, should be awarded to the advocate for the appellant. The Court is required to exercise its discretion in terms of the District Court Rules on costs. Outcome: advocate is awarded costs calculated on a 1A basis, with 50 per cent deduction, plus identified disbursement.

Consumer law / Sale of goods / Compensation for defects / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought defective car from Respondent / Applicant claims cost of repairing defects / Respondent claims they thoroughly checked car before sending to Applicant / Held: car was faulty at time of sale and was not of acceptable quality / Applicant did not cause any problem to damage the car / reasonable person would expect car to operate properly / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $7,855.10 within 28 days for repair costs / Claim allowed.