Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Appeal from the decision of a Reviewer. S 25(1)(ba) Accident Compensation Act 2001. Whether Ms Gilbert’s hepatitis A was the result of a criminal act which is required under the relevant section. Held: s 25(1)(ba) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 requires the ingestion to be the result of an act which is criminal, as shown by way of a charge, conviction or clear evidence of the commission of tan offence. s 223(1)(b)(ii) of the Food Act 2014 does not create a strict or absolute liability offence. No evidence of any regulatory or criminal investigation, charges, conviction or enforcement action. Decision of reviewer is upheld. Appeal is dismissed.

Contract law / Applicant engaged Respondent to manufacture commercial signs for his business / Work was carried out and the signs delivered to Applicant / Applicant did not pay / Respondent came to Applicant’s premises and removed the signs / Applicant claimed $8,000 for replacement signage / Respondent counterclaimed $6,756.00 for unpaid invoices, cost of sign removal, administration and debt collection costs and undue stress / Held: Applicant not entitled to $8000 as contract said the signs remained the Respondent’s property until they had been paid for / Applicant breached contract by failing to pay outstanding invoice / Claim dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,488.50 / Claim dismissed and counterclaim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant had sublease agreement with Respondent / Applicant was to ensure that all fixtures and fittings were serviced regularly by a qualified service provider / Applicant stated they engaged a provider to service the equipment and that repairs were required / Invoices were sent to the Respondent but they refused to pay / Applicant claimed $3,361.33 for repair costs as well as compensation costs for business interruption and health and safety concerns due to delayed repairs / Respondent stated replacement of minor consumable items was part of the Applicant’s obligations to keep the equipment “serviced” / Held: obligation to repair fixtures and fittings remained with Respondent / If the parties had wanted to share repair costs it should have been specified in the agreement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,361.33 and reimburse all repair and replacement costs related to the fixtures and fittings /  Not appropriate to make award compensation costs in the circumstances…

[2024] NZEmpC 115 VGM v JXC (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M S King, 1 July 2024) APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS - evidence of potential inability to pay - sought quantum is inappropriate - correct quantum should reflection estimated future costs, not remedies already awarded - security for costs ordered.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent obtained online estimate of $310.00 from Applicant for house cleaning services / Applicant sent confirmation email with its terms and conditions / Respondent overlooked confirmation email and obtained alternative prices, one of which he accepted / Applicant contacted Respondent with reminder on day before job was booked, Respondent advised he did not want the booking / Applicant claimed $217.00 cancellation charge / Held: parties entered into a contract / Terms sufficiently certain / Applicant engaged in misleading conduct by stating it was providing a quote when it was providing an estimate / Respondent did not suffer any loss from misleading conduct / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $217.00 / Claim allowed.

Objections to valuations by Council – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s 19(8)(b) – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Objections to valuations by Council – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s 19(8)(b) – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant to carry out building work / Applicant provided an estimate and said 'extras' were added as job progressed / Dispute arose about progress, extras and costs towards the end of the job / Applicant advised Respondent they were terminating contract before completion / Respondents paid $50,346.95 and a further $8445.34 had been invoiced and was outstanding / Respondents said they paid a further $20,000.00 to Applicant’s sub-contractors and they paid pay another builder $20,000.00 to finish incomplete job / Applicant claimed $8445.34 for outstanding amount / Held: Applicant failed to prove Respondent was liable for further payment / Absence of evidence about extent of completion on termination, dispute about what constituted extras, absence of agreement and costs for extras / Claim dismissed.

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Parties owned neighbouring properties / Applicant approached Respondent about paying for replacement boundary fence / Parties did not agree / Applicant issued fencing notice proposing Respondent pay 100% of $6154.80 cost of new fence and retaining wall / Respondent denied all liability for proposed work / Respondent accepted parts of fence needed replacing but maintained it was due to a lack of proper retaining and drainage on Applicant’s side / Respondent said she would be happy with new fence if Applicant paid for retaining and drainage costs / Respondent counterclaimed $4000.00 compensation for stress in responding to Applicant’s ‘false allegations’ and requested protection and non-harassment orders / Held: existing boundary fence not adequate as decaying in places / Appropriate for cost of new fence to be shared between parties / Total fencing cost accepted to be $2622.00, each neighbour’s half-share being $1311.00 / Tribunal not able to issue protecti…

[2024] NZEmpC 111 Citadel Capital Ltd v Miles (Costs Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 21 June 2024) APPLICATION FOR COSTS ON APPLICATION FOR STAY – GUIDELINE SCALE – lay representatives are entitled to costs in employment jurisdiction - costs awarded.

Objections to valuations by Council – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s 19(8)(b) – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased bedding package from Respondent for $6000.00 / Bed package was delivered but Applicants noted significant damage / Respondent agreed to provide a complete replacement of package / Respondent failed to provide a replacement / Applicants claimed $6000 plus filing fee / Respondent agreed Applicants entitled to a refund but argued they should only receive what Respondent received in payment from the credit company, $6,000.00 less the merchant fees / Held: bed package was not replaced and Applicants were out of pocket $6,000.00 / Applicants not party to agreement between Respondent and credit company / If any paid merchant fees were to be reimbursed then it was a matter for Respondent to discuss with credit company / Respondent ordered to refund Applicants $6000.00 / Costs claim dismissed / Claim granted in part.