Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Negligence / Applicant claimed his car was damaged by a runaway trolley in a supermarket carpark run by the Respondent / Applicant claimed $711.25 for repair costs and $45 filing fee / Held: insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was negligent / Likely another customer left the trolley in an insecure position / Unreasonable to expect a supermarket to employ enough staff to immediately move every wrongly placed trolley / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants booked international travel with Respondent airline / One flight in the journey was delayed for 17 hours and 40 minutes due to a hydraulic leak / Applicants claimed $7,624.38 for various costs, including for lost wages due to extra delay in transit, cost of traveling back to the destination to recoup one day’s missed holiday, time spent dealing with Respondent to seek compensation, and costs associated with Tribunal hearing / Respondent had reimbursed Applicants for some costs associated with delayed flight, including reimbursing cost of the flights themselves despite not being legally required to do so, less an outstanding $216.00 that it had been unable to credit to a credit card / Held: Applicants’ claimed losses were not reasonably foreseeable, therefore Applicants not entitled to compensation / Tribunal costs unable to be awarded in circumstances / Applicants to provide bank account details to Respondent for outst…

Contract / Applicants engaged the Respondent to build their home / After build was completed the total build price was more than the Applicants expected / Applicants considered they had been overcharged 10% extra for labour / Applicants sought refund of $30,000 / Held: no  ambiguity in contract clauses / Respondent entitled to charge labour rates plus margin of 10% / Respondent entitled to proceed with building on the basis that terms of the contract had been agreed upon / Claim dismissed.

Claim for compensation for taking of subsurface land – Public Works Act 1981, Pt 5 – Claim withdrawn by consent – No costs order.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to apply film to some windows in her home / Applicant later complained about smearing and dust between film and windows, scratches and bubbles / Parties agreed to have work inspected by industry body / After inspection, Applicant arranged for stripping of the film by another contractor / Respondent covered cost of stripping and refunded Applicant’s deposit, but refused to pay cost of replacing scratched windows / Applicant claimed $2,974.48 for replacing scratched panes and $2,000.00 in general damages and costs / Respondent counter-claimed $2,000.00 for refunded deposit, reimbursed cost of stripping and general damages / Held: more likely than not that scratches were caused by Respondent / Respondent liable for cost of replacing scratched panes / General damages not available / Respondent ordered to pay $2,974.48 / Claim allowed in part, counter-claim dismissed.

[2024] NZEmpC 68 Stonewood Group Ltd v VGP (Costs Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 2 May 2024) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – uplift for lack of GST registration – costs awarded.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicants engaged Respondent to do work on a deck at their property / $23,571.00 estimate was given / Design changes and other factors resulted in price increase / Final amount invoiced was $39,376.19 / Applicants paid $24,618.06 / Applicants sought order that they did not have to pay outstanding $14,758.13 / Respondent counterclaimed for payment of outstanding sum / Held: Respondent breached building rules by not informing Applicants of price increase due to design variation / $7,069.00 cost of variation was significant / If Applicants had known cost of variation, they would not have proceeded with changed design / Reasonable consumer would expect to pay reasonable price for variation, assessed as half actual cost, $3,534.50 / This figure along with other accepted costs and a 10% reasonable estimate overrun resulted in final figure of $32,863.04 / Applicants had paid $24,618.06, therefore must pay further $8,244.98 / Contract w…

Application as to costs relating to land acquisition compensation – Public Works Act 1981, ss 66, 76, 90, – Respondent ordered to pay costs of $80,301.76.

Fair trade / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant and Respondent were directors of a company / Respondent fraudulently provided a large number of false documents and was convicted on charges of using a document for a pecuniary advantage / Applicant claimed that the Respondent's fraudulent conduct resulted in their suffering financial loss / Held: Respondent considered as being in trade / Respondent's dishonest use of documents for pecuniary gain constituted misleading and deceptive conduct / Applicants suffered financial loss by reason of Respondent’s deceptive conduct / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $30,000 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Contract / Applicant purchased phone through Respondent's website / Purchase price included trade-in value of Applicant's old phone / Estimated trade-in amount was $220.00 / When Applicant send his old phone in the trade-in value was reduced to $40.00 / Applicant claimed that undervalued his old phone / Applicant sought $418.00, based on a resale website estimate / Respondent claimed Applicant was given estimated trade-in value of $220.00 / Phone was then sent to a third party who discovered water damage and battery issues which lowered phone value to $40.00 / Held: not sufficient evidence that there was a breach of contract / Applicant given the option to accept or reject $40.00 offer / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant’s vehicle was stationary at give way sign when Respondent’s vehicle turned from intersecting road and hit Applicant’s car / Applicant and insurer claimed Respondent was at fault and sought recovery of losses suffered of $5752.75 / Held: crash occurred because Respondent did not make his turn with enough clearance of give way road marking where Applicant was stationary / Costs sought were fair and reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $5752.75 / Claim granted.

Contract / Dog Control Act 1996 / Applicant was moving overseas and needed someone to look after her dog until she had a place to live / Respondents agreed to look after dog / Applicant agreed to pay all of Respondents’ expenses related to dog and eventually having her sent overseas / Parties expected arrangement to be for around three months / After delays, Respondents claimed they were now the owners of the dog and refused to return her / Applicant sought order for Respondents to return dog and pay damages of $14,597.04 / Held: arrangement between parties was a contract creating legally binding obligations / Applicant remained legal owner of dog throughout arrangement / Applicant entitled to have dog returned after paying Respondents $3,314.08 costs associated with care of dog / Respondents breached contract by failing to return the dog / Applicant’s claim for damages not made out / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Respondents engaged Applicant’s property management services / Parties signed contract with 12-month fixed term / Respondent believed Applicant’s attempts to find tenant were inadequate and attempted to cancel contract / Applicant responded suggesting a reduction of rent, and noting 12-month fixed term on contract / Respondents confirmed cancellation / Respondents engaged another property management company who readvertised property for cheaper rent, after which property was tenanted quickly / Applicant invoiced Respondents for full 12-month fee / Applicant claimed $4682.80 for full 12-month fee plus $120 advertising costs / Held: Applicant did not breach its contractual obligations to Respondents who were therefore not entitled to cancel contract / Intermeddling and exclusivity clauses in contract contained a penalty component that was not enforceable / Reduction to amount claimed in damages to more accurately reflect losses likely suffered by Applicant / Respondents ordere…