Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant entered verbal contract with Respondent that the Respondent's shop would sell items on behalf of Applicant / Items had been sold but Applicant had not received payment / Applicant claimed value of items and collection costs / Held: Applicant entitled to contract / Respondent refused to fulfil obligations by refusing to pay Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,801 / Claim allowed.

Objection to valuation by Council – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s 19(8)(b) – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Negligence /Applicant cyclist and Respondent motorcyclist collided in a road accident / Applicant provided CCTV footage that showed he entered into an intersection controlled by lights / Applicant was cycling slowly and was positioned at the centre of the intersection /  After two cars passed, Applicant started turning right / Respondent was driving his motorcycle through the intersection and said he was aware of the Applicant /  Respondent overtook Applicant just as Applicant was turning right, and both riders collided / Applicant claimed for cost of his replacement bike, helmet and bike carrier from his insurer / Applicant now claimed for his insurer to be compensated for the loss it incurred / Held: Respondent breached his duty of care by overtaking in an intersection without ensuring it was safe to do so / Applicant’s insurer entitled to be compensated for all reasonably foreseeable loss / Total foreseeable loss was $1,049.50 / Applicant’s insurer shown that it was entitled to be c…

Negligence / Applicant left his car with the Respondent to have new tyres fitted / Applicant paid $1000.00 for the tyres / Severe flooding affected location of Respondent’s workshop / Vehicles in the workshop were written off as a result of the flooding / Speed and severity of flooding took local council and emergency services by surprise / Held: Respondent could not have predicted or even suspected the flooding / Respondent had no reason to take any special precautions / Claim of negligence not established / Respondent had no legal liability to Applicant for the loss of his vehicle in the flood / Respondent negotiated a payout from its insurer based on part of its policy covering vehicles damaged while in the workshop / Respondent offered Applicant $14,000.00 as part of their insurance pay out / Respondent also agreed to refund the costs of the tyres, $1000.00 / Respondent agreed to pay Applicant $15,000.00 in total / Claim dismissed.

[2024] NZEmpC 135 Chantama v McKerchar Lamb Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge M S King, 29 July 2024) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – plaintiff succeeded in earlier interlocutory application – costs to lie where they fall.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant entered into an agreement to purchase a property from the Respondent / Applicant got a building inspection done before purchase but not a specialised watertightness inspection / After settlement, Applicant noticed a leak in the garage / Applicant consulted plumbers but they could not provide a solution / Applicant concluded the Respondent knew about the leak / Applicant claimed $28,500.00 from Respondent, comprising $258.75 for legal costs, $230.00 for a private investigator, $460.00 for engineer’s report, $180.00 for filing fee, and $27,255.00 for estimated cost of repairing leak / Held: more likely than not that the Respondent knew about the leak / Applicant did not produce any evidence that Respondent made any statements that might have amounted to a misrepresentation / Respondent did not have legal duty to disclose the leak / Under the contract, Applicant bore the risk that there could be problems with …

Objections to valuation by Council – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s 19(8)(b) – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Tort / Conversion / Applicant sold vehicle to customer / Vehicle had issues and Applicant engaged Respondent to undertake repairs / Respondent engaged third-party repairer as work was outside Respondent’s expertise / Applicant refused to pay third-party repairer’s invoice as it was not made out to Applicant / Respondent refused to allow Applicant to retrieve vehicle / Issue with invoice finally resolved, but while pickup was being arranged, wheels were stolen from vehicle / Respondent sent Applicant invoice for cost of wheel replacement plus storage costs / Applicant claimed damages of $19,895.34 being price of car plus cost of repairs paid to Respondent / Held: Respondent did not prove they had a right to retain vehicle when Applicant attempted to retrieve it / Respondent converted Applicant's vehicle / Applicant entitled to damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $16,080.34 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant successfully bid on a phone being sold by Respondent / Applicant paid $1,748.34 into Respondent’s bank account / Respondent told her he had not received the payment, that she could resend her payment and he would refund the first payment if it showed up / Applicant’s bank confirmed payment had been made / Applicant had not received phone or refund / Applicant claimed $2,368.34 for refund and time spent / Held: claim for time spent unable to be awarded / Applicant was induced into entering contract by misrepresentation by Respondent, namely that if she paid purchase price and shipping the phone would be sent to her / Respondent ordered to pay $1,748.34 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicants purchased a new build property from Respondent / When Applicants moved in they discovered the gas califont had been removed and that work required to meet resource consent requirements had not been completed / Applicants initially claimed $30,000.00 for remedial work, replacement of califont and legal fees, but reduced their claim following completion of further work by both parties / Held: most probable the califont was missing prior to settlement / Applicants entitled to cost of replacing califont, $2,207.00 / Applicants entitled to reimbursement for costs incurred carrying out work that was Respondent’s responsibility: $475.75 for paint and landscaping supplies / Applicants’ legal costs were a consequential loss suffered due to Respondent’s failure to provide property as contracted for, entitled to $4000.00 / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $6,682.75 / Claim allowed.

Nuisance / Property / Applicant and First Respondent were neighbours / First Respondent contracted Second Respondent to build retaining wall on First Respondent’s land near the Applicant’s boundary / Applicant claimed construction work occurred within root zone of his gum tree, and interference meant tree died and had to be removed / Applicant claimed $14,409.26 monetary loss incurred as consequence of tree being killed / Second Respondent cross-claimed for costs incurred preparing for hearing / Held: construction work disturbed tree’s root zone with detrimental effect on the tree such that it died and had to be cut down / An occupier entitled to cut back to the boundary overhanging branches or encroaching roots of a neighbour’s trees providing it is done with reasonable care / Insufficient evidence that Respondents failed to exercise reasonable care / Claim dismissed / Second Respondent’s cross-claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant hired Respondent to move household contents to new house / Part of contents damaged during move plus wall in new house / Applicant claimed for costs of repairs and stress caused / Held: contract was contract for carriage at limited carrier's risk so carrier liable for loss or damage / Damage to wall more likely than not caused by Respondents / Respondent to pay Applicant cost of repairs less balance owing from invoice / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / First Applicant hired a generator from Respondent for use at an event at which it was to power equipment he had hired from Second and Third Applicants / Shortly after equipment was connected to generator, several items started to smoke and were extensively damaged / Second and Third Applicants invoiced First Applicant for the damaged equipment / First Applicant sought to hold Respondent liable for the losses, claiming Respondent was negligent in the supply of the generator / Held: supply by Respondent was not carried out with reasonable care and skill and/or was negligent / Incorrect configuration of generator was direct cause of damage to equipment, and damage was reasonably foreseeable / Claimed costs of repairing and/or replacing damaged equipment accepted as invoiced / Respondent ordered to pay $19,811.51 to Second Applicant and $5486.14 to Third Applicant / Claim allowed.