Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2024] NZEmpC 62 Guerra v Wilson-Grange Investments Ltd T/A The Grange Bar and Restaurant (Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 10 April 2024) APPLICATION FOR COMPLIANCE ORDER – ordered costs have not been paid – company has not responded – breach is likely to continue – application granted.

Contract / Property Law Act 2007 / Parties purchased house together / Each party owned one third share / Relationship between parties broke down / Respondent convicted of assault and bailed away from house / Respondent stopped contributing to mortgage and outgoings / Parties agreed to sell house / Applicants claimed $10,000 for Respondent’s unpaid contributions / Respondent counterclaimed $16,706.43 for costs relating to property / Held: parties had agreed to equal contributions to property outgoings, and equal shares in proceeds from any sale / Respondent being bailed away from address did not absolve him of responsibility for contributions / Respondent liable for $9,120 mortgage contributions / None of Respondent’s counterclaims successful / Orders made for equal distribution of sale proceeds minus deductions for successful claims / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.

[2024] NZEmpC 59 The Port Hills Foundation Charitable Trust v Luamanuvae-Sua (Costs Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 9 April 2024) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – costs awarded.

Objections to the valuation by Council – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s 19(8) – Valuation withdrawn with both parties' consent – No order as to costs.

Contract / Applicant conducted business from Respondent’s shop / Parties signed agreement detailing arrangement / Respondent later informed Applicant that the agreement was cancelled / Applicant claimed compensation for loss of income and related costs / Applicant claimed cancellation was unjustified and unlawful / Held: Applicant had contractual license to occupy part of Respondent’s premises / Respondent had legal freedom to revoke license at any time for any reason / Applicant had same freedom to cancel at any time for any reason / No agreement that consent of other party was required for revocation or cancellation / Respondent under no legal obligation to continue with arrangement / Respondent not liable for any costs or losses incurred / Claim dismissed.

Trespass / Applicant parked her car in a private car park with signage stating “No Parking Private Property” / Applicant received infringement notice from Respondent and request to pay $95.00 / Applicant disputed charge and paid $2.00 / Respondent increased demanded payment to $245.00 / Respondent advised that Applicant was required to pay $318.00 / Held: Applicant trespassed when he parked in a clearly signposted private carpark / Order for $95 was reasonable / Applicant ordered to pay $93, infringement notice amount minus paid $2 / No contract between parties so no basis to claim late payment fees / Applicant not liable for any other claimed amount by Respondent / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged to carry out specialised cleaning job on Respondent’s home / Work  completed and invoiced for $3,153.05 / Payment made to Applicant for $2,000.00 / Respondent disputed outstanding balance of $1,153.05 as being an unreasonable price / Held: invoiced amount for specialist clean was a reasonable price / Comparable invoices for similar jobs carried out by Applicant were consistent in pricing with Respondent’s job / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,153.05 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicants entered sale and purchase agreement (SPA) to sell their home to Respondents / Respondents were unable to settle on Friday settlement date, and sale settled the following Monday / Applicants claimed $5392.38 for losses due to delayed settlement / Respondents disputed amount claimed as unreasonable / Held: Applicants entitled to claim costs for losses after settlement in accordance with clauses in the SPA / Applicants entitled to reasonable costs associated with breach of contract / Applicants entitled to $388.23 for 1 ½ hours mover’s waiting time, $2070.00 for storage and redelivery, $172.50 for additional legal expenses, $266.67 for food, pet boarding and additional petrol and travel, and $333.33 for meat and groceries that perished in moving truck / Respondents ordered to pay $3187.73 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent for window painting / Quoted price was $4,538.77 / Applicant paid 50% deposit / At end of job, Applicant received invoice for $5,035.13, being $7,304.52 minus $2,269.39 deposit / Applicant paid $2,269.39 remainder of original quoted amount, and disputed remainder of invoice / Applicant also raised workmanship issues / Applicant claimed refund of $4,538.78 / Respondent counter-claimed $2,855.65 for outstanding invoice plus interest/costs / Held: parties agreed to $4,538.77 contract price / There was no clear agreement to vary contract price / Respondent’s work required remediation, therefore was not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent had opportunity to remedy, but refused to do so due to dispute over invoice / Applicant entitled to cost of remedial work, $3,735.50 / Applicant not entitled to refund / Respondent ordered to pay $3,735.50 / Claim allowed in part, counter-claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant undertook kitchen renovation for Respondents / Applicant claimed $1,974.50 outstanding balance for work / Respondents claimed work was defective, counterclaimed $12,000.00 for rectification work / Held: renovation services provided by Applicant were not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Defects were significant, work was overall poorly done and incomplete / Failure substantial therefore Respondents not obliged to give Applicant opportunity to carry out remedial work / Respondents entitled to $9,356.96 quoted remedial costs, less outstanding balance of account / Applicant ordered to pay $7,382.46 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took his recently purchased car to Respondent for a custom wrap / Applicant paid $4,700.00 / Applicant unhappy with result and also claimed car was damaged / Applicant claimed $5,500.00 for repair costs and having wrap redone / Held: evidence accepted that Respondent failed to carry out wrap work with reasonable care and skill / Respondent’s failure was of substantial character / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and receive a full refund / Applicant’s estimated costs accepted / Respondent ordered to pay $5,500.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant filed insurance claim with Respondent for damaged car / After investigation, Respondent declined Applicant’s claim and cancelled his insurance policy / Applicant claimed $15,000.00 toward cost of repairing car and refund of $558.27 towing costs / Held: collision did not occur as described by Applicant / Applicant breached contract with Respondent by giving false information about collision / Respondent entitled to refuse claim and cancel contract / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant to oversee restaurant fit out / Applicant claimed $29,431 for unpaid invoices / Respondent argued hours claimed in invoices were excessive / Respondent counterclaimed $30,000 for costs associated with incorrect window installation / Applicant argued issue with window was outside its contracted responsibility / Held: contract was for project management services / Three of five claimed invoices were excessive / $22,000 more fairly reflected value of hours charged / Given Applicant’s project management function, it did have responsibility for window / Applicant breached contract by failing to exercise reasonable care and skill by failing to promptly identify fault with window / Applicant liable for $16,596.35, one month’s rent while restaurant unable to open due to window issue / Respondent ordered to pay $5,403.65, being $22,000.00 outstanding invoices less $16,596.35 / Claim and counter-claim both allowed in part.