Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Negligence / Applicant was involved in road collision with Third Respondent, driving a vehicle owned by First Respondent (her employer) / Each party maintained the other was responsible for collision / Applicant claimed $7,137.97 for cost of repairs and bringing claim / First Respondent counterclaimed $10,327.38 for cost of repairs / Held: on balance of probabilities, Third Respondent was responsible for collision / Most probably Third Respondent turned out of a driveway into the path of an oncoming car, thereby causing the collision / Third Respondent was driving First Respondent’s vehicle as its employee / First Respondent vicariously liable for Third Respondent’s actions / Costs claimed by Applicant for repairs was reasonable / Costs for bringing claim unable to be awarded / First and Third Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $6,637.96 / Claim allowed / Counterclaim dismissed.  

Contract / Interest / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Applicant engaged by Respondent as an independent contractor for data entry work / Applicant filed claim against Respondent for $360.84, unpaid sums of $45.40 and $20.44 plus interest, damages for time pursuing payment, and filing fee / Unpaid sums since been paid / Applicant now claimed $840.00 in compensation for late payment, including interest, time spent and filing fee / Held: no contractual provision for interest in circumstances / DTA provided for interest to be ordered at Tribunal’s discretion / DTA does not allow for interest where debt was paid before hearing / Circumstances not met for costs to be awarded / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased travel insurance policy from Respondent / While overseas, Applicant’s tooth broke / Applicant made travel insurance claim to cover cost of dental care / Claim declined / Applicant claimed $1,999.00 as contribution towards dental costs / Held: insurance contract stated dental treatment would be covered if it was for relief of sudden and acute pain, or as a result of damage to sound and natural teeth caused by injury / Applicant’s tooth broke during flossing after eating some nuts / Cause did not meet definition of injury in insurance policy but pain experienced was covered / No evidence to suggest affected tooth had deterioration or decay, therefore not excluded from cover / Respondent breached contract by declining Applicant’s claim / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,999.00 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant attended Respondent’s site to carry out work / Applicant was directed to park in a particular spot while unloading their tools / While parked, a concrete aggregator inadvertently overloaded and spilt its content onto Applicant’s vehicle, causing damage / Applicant’s insurer claimed $7,776.07 for repair costs / At hearing, Respondent questioned whether Applicant had parked at the spot longer than it took them to unload tools / Held: Applicant was told where to park by Respondent’s manager / No specific timeframe for unloading tools was given / Respondent had duty of care to protect Applicant from foreseeable risks of harm / Duty was breached when aggregator was overloaded / Damage caused by the spillage of aggregate was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of overloading aggregator / Respondent liable for reasonable costs of repairing damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent order to pay $7,776.07 / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Compensation / Applicant's house damaged by earthquake / Respondent was Applicant's insurer / Court of Appeal and High Court heard matters / Applicant and Respondent signed a deed of settlement / Applicant claimed Respondent has not dealt with him unfairly by not being honest in providing fair settlement / Applicant claimed $8,818.60 which is 10% of professional fees plus GST and 10% contingencies and interest since 2011 / Held: Applicant signed two settlement agreements with Respondent, each expressed to be full and final settlement of all existing or future claims / Applicant provided no evidence decision of court was misleading or deceptive / Claim struck out.

Claim for costs on appeal. Appellant entitled to costs following successful appeal. Proceedings of average complexity, justifying category 2 costs. Appellant represented by non-lawyer, therefore 50 per cent of scheduled daily rate awarded. Outcome: Corporation directed to pay Appellant $3,920.00 costs and disbursements.

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

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked international return flights for her mother through the Respondent / First flight departed at scheduled time but return flight left three hours early stranding the Applicant’s mother at the airport / Applicant was told that her mother had failed to reconfirm her flight 72 hours before departure, therefore Respondent could not help her / Applicant made a booking with another airline and her mother was able to fly home two days later / Applicant claimed compensation of $1,050.90, cost for extra return flight home / Held:  Respondent did not manage the flight with reasonable care and skill / Respondent was advised of flight change three months before scheduled departure / Significant flight change notifications were part of the agreed services provided by Respondent / Not reasonable for the Respondent to assume the airline would contact Applicant / Respondent refused to help Applicant book another flight, so she was left to he…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought lamps and pendant lights from Respondent / Applicant became concerned products were not described accurately by Respondent / Applicant sought order he is entitled to return products and receive $10,120 refund / Held: no evidence to support lamps were manufactured by the person advertised by Respondent / Important for vintage items to have reasonably accurate description when being sold / Applicant entitled to a refund of the purchase price of the two lamps / Claim in relation to pendant lights dismissed as no sufficient evidence to support finding that lights have not been correctly described / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,560 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Respondent contracted Applicant to repair leaks in his boat / Additional repairs were made by Applicant / Respondent refused to pay for additional repairs claiming that he did not authorise extra work / Applicant claimed for unpaid fees / Held: Applicant advised Respondent that additional repairs would be carried out at the Respondent's cost / Invoiced amount reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,412.59 / Claim allowed.

14.05.2024 | Chief Judge C L Fox (Presiding), Judge S F Reeves, Judge M P Armstrong | Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 | Costs appeal

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.