Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

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 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant took car to Respondent to inspect and repair car for certification / Applicant paid and Respondent substantially completed work, but the certifier who worked for Respondent lost ability to certify cars before Applicant's car was certified / Applicant had repairs and certification completed by another provider / Applicant claimed for refund from Respondent as well as for other repair work done, legal fees and stress / Held: services provided by Respondent were not fit for purpose / Applicant took car to Respondent for express purpose of having it certified and Respondent was unable to do that / Insufficient evidence to  establish deceptive conduct by Respondent / Respondent could not remedy failure due to inability to certify cars so refund of money paid to Respondent by Applicant was appropriate / Claim for compensation of cost of going to other providers for repairs was not allowed as Applicant was always …

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 / Property / Remedy / Applicant purchased new-build home from First Respondent / Applicant discovered flooding and engaged a plumber to investigate / Plumber found pipe was obstructed and Applicant notified First Respondent / First Respondent contracted Second Respondent to inspect and clear blockage / Flooding occurred again a month later / Applicant claimed payment for plumbing invoices / Held: insufficient evidence to prove blockages were caused by construction waste / Other waste material caused blockage further down the system / No remedy available to Applicant for costs incurred / Applicant ordered to pay Second Respondent / Claim dismissed.

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, s36 – 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.

[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.