Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a steer from Respondent for $600.00 / Steer turned out to be a rig which put her cows at risk of getting pregnant / Applicant claimed $2393.15 for vet costs associated with possible pregnant cows, vet bill for desexing the rig (who died during surgery) and costs to bury the rig / Held: Respondent misrepresented the animal to the Applicant inducing her into buying it / Fair and reasonable amount for vet related costs was $902.25 / Claim for burying costs was dismissed as the Applicant had other options of destroying the beast / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $902.25 / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent advertised a commercial dishwasher for sale online for $2,000.00 / Applicant offered $1,300.00 and Respondent accepted price / Applicant paid in instalments / Applicant then came to collect dishwasher, but refused to take it as allegedly it was in poor condition and too big / Applicant claimed $1,300.00 / Held: contract for sale and purchase of dishwasher was formed when Respondent accepted offer of $1,300 / No evidence that advertisement was incorrect / Later discussion between parties about condition and size of dishwasher occurred after contract had been formed / No evidence of any misrepresentation before contract was entered into / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Parties entered into contract for substantial renovations to Applicant’s house / Applicant claimed there was a blow out as a result of Respondent not being financially transparent / Applicant refused to paid final invoices / Applicant sought an declaration that the final invoices did not need to be paid / Respondent claimed $30,000 in unpaid work / Held: contract was estimate of costs and not fixed price / Not sufficiently proven that increased cost was any fault of Respondent / Respondent entitled for final invoices to be paid / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $30,000 / Claim dismissed and counter-claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant rented a room in Respondents’ house / Respondents entered Applicant’s bedroom several times when she was not there / When Applicant’s security camera notified her this happened in the middle of night she decided to move out without giving notice / Applicant sought $1,999.00 for bond, rent, accommodation costs after moving out and compensation for emotional distress / Respondents counterclaimed for damage to a door, utility costs and extra charges for Applicant’s partner staying overnight / Held: Applicant entitled to cancel contract without notice / Respondents breached Applicant’s right to quiet enjoyment of her room multiple times / Breach sufficiently serious for Applicant to cancel contract immediately / Applicant entitled to bond refund and advance rent payment, total of $1,362.88 / Respondents not liable for any other amount / Applicant liable to Respondents for $35.71 for her partner staying overnight, as earlier agreed…

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Second Respondent removed sink at dwelling to avoid compliance requirement by District Council / Second Respondent reinstated sink and sold property to Applicant / Applicant claimed $30,000 on the basis that Respondent's conduct was misleading and deceptive / Held: First Respondent in breach of warranties and undertakings in the Agreement / Liability extend to Second Respondent personally / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $15,000 / Respondent liable to pay Development Contribution but not surveyor and planner fees and the Applicant's legal fees / Claim allowed in part.

Objection to valuations by Council – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Negligence / Parties were involved in a vehicle collision at a roundabout / Respondent entered roundabout and crossed path of Applicant’s vehicle as she exited roundabout / Respondent claimed Applicant had not been indicating correctly / Applicant and her insurer claimed $4560.69 for damage to her vehicle / Held: Respondent caused collision by failing to give way to her right / Respondent liable for repair costs incurred by Applicant’s insurer / Respondent ordered to pay $4560.69 / Claim allowed.

[2024] NZEmpC 67 Roberts v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections (Costs Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 2 May 2024) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – no reason to order uplift – costs awarded.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to work on her bathroom renovation / Applicant claimed work was of poor quality / Applicant claimed $3700.00 refund, $1000.00 for remedial work, $72.08 for rubbish disposal, and $24.90 Tribunal costs / Held: three independent contractors gave damning statements about standard of Respondent’s work / There were failures of consumer guarantees of reasonable care and skill and of fitness for purpose by Respondent, and failures were of substantial character / No value in Respondent’s work, so Applicant entitled to refund of money paid / Applicant entitled to refund of payments totaling $3400.00, but insufficient evidence to support additional $300.00 / Applicant entitled to consequential losses of $1000 for stripping back job and $72.08 rubbish removal / Costs unable to be awarded / Respondent ordered to pay $4472.08 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant was engaged to do building work for Respondent / After first week, Respondent advised he was not happy with progress and Applicant withdrew from job / Applicant invoiced $4592.81 for hours worked / Respondent paid total of $1906.00, based on his calculation of what it would cost him to remedy claimed issues with Applicant’s work / Applicant claimed balance of $2686.81 / Respondent counterclaimed $4470.00, being refund of $720.00 and $3750.00 for 5 weeks storage necessary due to delay caused by Applicant leaving site after a week / Held: not all of Applicant’s work was carried out with reasonable care and skill / Extent of failure difficult to determine as no independent assessment was provided / 20% reduction of Applicant’s charges allowed as compensation for cost of remedial work / Insufficient evidence for Respondent’s counterclaimed storage costs / Respondent ordered to pay $1768.25 / Claim and counterclaim allowed in part.

Objections to valuations by Council – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Valuation agreed by consent – No costs order.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant ran a vinyl fair at Respondent’s venue for many years / In 2022, Applicant exchanged emails with Respondent’s venue manager about booking the venue for dates in May and November 2023 / In August 2023, Respondent advised Applicant that the November date was no longer available / Applicant sought compensation for loss of revenue and other associated costs with the fair not proceeding in November / Held: agreement between Applicant and Respondent for use of the venue in November was a pencilled-in booking / A pencilled-in booking can be cancelled by either party at any time prior to it being confirmed / Applicant’s booking was not confirmed before Respondent cancelled it / Respondent not legally obliged to make venue available to Applicant on November date / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a puppy from Respondent / Puppy advertised as pure-bred / Applicant arranged for a breed makeup test which showed the dog was not pure-bred / Applicant claimed $1,129.99 being partial refund of $1,000.00 plus $129.00 for test / Held: on balance, the representation that the puppy was purebred was a misrepresentation / Misrepresentation induced Applicant to enter contract / Unlikely Applicant would have paid $2,200.00 purchase price if she had not believed puppy to be purebred / Reasonable for Respondent to provide dollar compensation for difference in value between the puppy and a purebred dog  / Applicant entitled to a $1,000.00 refund / Applicant not allowed $129.00 for breed makeup test, as was cost incurred to prove claim / Respondent ordered to pay $1,000 / Claim allowed in part.