Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Applicant booked 59 return international flights with the Respondent / Each time the Applicant booked a flight he would cancel the paid part of the fare, obtaining a credit and retaining the free outgoing booking, and then book another return flight under the same terms / Applicant did not take any of the outgoing flights / For each outgoing flight there was a charge for passenger movement / Respondent airline paid that charge in each case / Applicant did not take any of the flights and any passenger movement charge paid would have been refunded to the Respondent since the Applicant did not depart at any point/ Respondent refused to pay passenger movement claims / Applicant filed a claim for the payment of 59 passenger movement charges, totalling $4,965.00 / Held: no passenger movement charges were collected from Applicant for flights / No administration fee was refundable as none was paid to the Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Building / Building Act 2004 / Limitation Act 2010 / Applicant purchased property from Respondent in 2016 / In 2024, Applicant said there was a leak in one of the bedroom ceilings caused by a defect in the roofing / Applicant claimed there had been a breach of warranties as the roof had been laid incorrectly / Applicant claimed $3,029.00 to remedy roof / Held: most likely roof was not laid with reasonable care and skill / Building expert confirmed roof had been installed incorrectly, and that would have caused durability issues and may have been the cause of the leak / Claim was filed outside six year primary period in Limitation Act / Claim was permitted as Applicant was not aware of roofing issue until 2024, and filed claim very promptly after becoming aware of problem / Reasonable costs to repair roof was $3,029.00 / Respondent ordered to pay $3,029.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Insurance / Applicant had a collision in her vehicle / Applicant arranged to have repairs carried out through the Respondent insurer / Later, Applicant advised Respondent that water was leaking from her car and the temperature gauge was high / Applicant believed the vehicle had not been repaired properly / Respondent did not consider the leak was caused by the collision / Car will no longer start / Applicant claimed $3,5000.00, purchase price and miscellaneous costs associated with repairs / Respondent said heater core failed due to age of vehicle / Respondent believed timing of failure and collision was coincidental / Held: most likely the heater core failure was not caused by the collision / Under Applicant's insurance policy, Respondent had a responsibility to fix damage caused by the collision but no obligation to fix other damage / Claim dismissed.

[2024] NZEmpC 105 Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 13 June 2024) APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS – risk that costs award would not be able to be complied with – security for costs awarded.

Contract / Recruitment / Applicant operated a recruitment business / Applicant was engaged by an employee, she believed, had been acting on behalf of the Respondent to find two staff members / Applicant said she found two suitable candidates who the Respondent ultimately employed / Applicant said that the employee had agreed that she should be paid at a rate of 13% of the successful candidates’ first annual salary / Applicant claimed $30,000.00 from the Respondent for recruitment of staff as well as interest and costs / Respondent denied liability to pay / Held:  evidence indicated the employee was authorised to make the contract / Respondent had authorised the employee to act in a variety of roles including that of recruiting staff / Respondent bound by the arrangement that its employee made / Nothing relating to interest or additional costs in the Applicant’s correspondence / Claim for those additional sums not allowed/ Respondent ordered to pay $19,468.80 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a cabin from Respondent for $9,107.00 / Cabin was constructed by a contractor / After construction, cabin’s door blew off, requiring replacement / Year before replacement door to arrive / Respondent also replaced some hardware / Applicant determined cabin was not safe, was concerned it would collapse / Applicant disposed of cabin / Applicant requested refund of price paid for cabin on basis it was not of acceptable quality or fit for purpose / Held: Applicant lost right to reject goods for refund when he disposed of cabin / Applicant’s claim likely would not have succeeded even if he had not disposed of cabin / Balance of probability was that cabin was of acceptable quality but failed due to its construction / Respondent agreed to make $2,000.00 goodwill payment to Applicant even if claim was dismissed / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Parties were involved in vehicle collision / Applicant was in his van on median strip, planning to turn right / Respondent turned right onto road / Respondent moved onto median strip to turn right and the two cars collided / Held: more likely that Respondent was responsible for damage to Applicant’s van / Applicant was entitled to be on median strip, and was there to be seen if Respondent had looked more carefully / No exceptions to rule that cars turning right must give way to all traffic not turning / Costs of repairs reasonable and consistent with damage done / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $11,984.02 / Claim allowed.  

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent sold bridal dresses / Prospective buyers were given a form acknowledging refunds or exchanges would not be issued if buyer changed their mind or gained or lost weight / Applicant purchased a dress for $1850 / Dress was oversized / Applicant consulted a seamstress via video call who advised she would not be able to alter dress / Applicant told Respondent that she wanted to cancel sale / Respondent refused / Applicant’s daughter made comments attacking Respondent’s business online / Parties were unable to reach compromise / Applicant claimed for cancellation of sale and refund of price paid of $1850 / Held: Respondent was not in breach of any guarantee / Not proven that dress was not able to be altered / Seamstress' opinion over video link was not a reasonable cause to reject dress / Not proven that Respondent failed to provide service with reasonable skill and care / Counterclaim for reputational damage to Respondent’s business no…

Contract / Applicant provided Respondent estimate of $2,104.50 for renovation work, Respondent accepted and paid $1,052.25 deposit / When Applicant arrived on site, several factors increased scope of work / Applicant advised Respondent a price variation was needed, but no estimate was given / When work was completed, Applicant invoiced total of $8012.47, less deposit, leaving $6960.22 outstanding / As Respondent disputed amount charged, Applicant brought claim for balance of invoice / Held: pricing supplied by Applicant clearly stated it was an estimate, not a quote / Parties did not agree on a variation and scope of work did not change / Work proceeded on basis of original estimate / Final price may vary from an estimate by up to 15% / Due to costs incurred, reasonable to allow 15% variation / Respondent also liable for additional costs for cladding materials and finishing lines / Respondent ordered to pay $1726.25 / Claim allowed in part.

Application for costs following dismissal of objections to valuations – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 38(4)(b) – Objections dismissed due to being frivolous or vexatious – Council awarded $1,380 costs.

Bailment / Negligence / Applicant decided to sell his motorbike / Respondents offered to sell bike on Applicant’s behalf / Respondents sold bike to person living in a caravan at their house / Buyer purchased bike for $13,400.00 and paid $1,400 into Applicant’s account / Applicant told Respondents on no account was buyer to take possession of bike before full payment was made / Some months later, Applicant had still not received the $12,000.00 / Respondents told him buyer had taken the bike / Applicant claimed price he originally paid for bike together with other losses / Held: Respondents entered into bailment relationship with Applicant when they took his bike on agreement they would sell it for him / Respondents were negligent in their duty as bailee by failing to keep possession of bike until payment received in full / Applicant incurred loss of $12,000 unpaid balance / Respondents ordered to pay $12,000 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a kitchen from Respondent / Applicants claimed Respondent described the kitchen as being solid wood, when it had MDF panelling when installed / Applicants also claimed the oven and microwave cavities were installed at the incorrect height and the kitchen had imperfections and defects / Applicants claimed $18,630.00, half the purchase price / Held: Respondent represented the kitchen as being of solid wood / Kitchen was not made of solid wood as described / Evidence showed several defects with kitchen installation / Failure of kitchen to match the description was of substantial character as it departed in a significant respect from the description / Applicants entitled to $15,000 compensation / Compensation equated to difference in price between what was contracted for and what was received and that the Applicants had an inferior product installed in their home / Claim allowed in part.