Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought vehicle from Second Respondent / Applicant had an accident using Second Respondent’s courtesy vehicle / Second Respondent claimed Applicant liable for courtesy car repair cost / Since taking possession, Applicants sought to return vehicle to the Second Respondent due to intermittent starting problems / Held: vehicle not of acceptable quality due to ongoing problem that is difficult to diagnose and fix, and causing serious inconvenience and stress to Applicants / Applicant can reject and obtain full refund / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $14,500 / Applicants not liable to pay any costs relating to Second Respondent’s courtesy car / Claim against Second Respondent allowed.

Contract / Parking infringement / Applicant issued breach notice by Respondent for parking at shopping centre “without permission in authorised vehicle only car park” / Applicant appealed breach notice with Respondent twice without success / Applicant filed claim with Tribunal / Respondent advised Applicant it had waived breach notice / Applicant claimed $500.00 for time spent appealing original breach notice and time spent on Tribunal claim / Held: original breach notice did not correctly state what terms and conditions Applicant had breached / Applicant spent approximately 30-45 minutes dealing with matter / Applicant did not suffer any financial loss requiring compensation from Respondent / Circumstances not met for awarding Tribunal costs / Claim dismissed.

Reserved judgment as to costs on recall application. s 149 Accident Compensation Act. Appellant and appellant's advocate were on notice that ACC may seek costs due to abuse of process. Advocate's application meritless. Costs awarded against advocate.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car battery from Respondent for $2,651.20 / Battery came with 2 year, 60,000km warranty / Applicant later reported faults with battery and took car to Respondent to investigate / After several attempts at repair, car battery still failed / Respondent offered $600.00 compensation / Applicant refused offer and demanded full refund / Applicant claimed $8,000.00 for refund of battery purchase and related costs and losses / Held: warranty created reasonable expectation that battery would last for 2 years and/or 60,000km / Battery failed after 43,000km and 17 months / Battery was not of reasonably acceptable quality / Due to disposal of battery, Applicant lost right to reject battery and claim full refund / Applicant entitled to compensation for reduction in value of battery and nominal damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,042.34 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Parties were involved in road collision between Applicant’s car and Respondent’s truck towing a wide-load trailer with an excavator / Applicant claimed $9,844.00 for repairs to her vehicle / Respondent counterclaimed $4,999.00 for lost earnings responding to claim against it / Held: Respondent’s vehicle was preceded by pilot vehicle and truck and trailer displayed signs and hazard warning flags / Pilot instructed Applicant to stop / Applicant failed to comply with direction to stop, and her decision to continue to advance to an unsafe position caused the collision / Respondent not responsible for collision / Respondent not entitled to costs / Claim and counter-claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased a pedigree dog from the Respondent for breeding purposes for $3000 / Two years later the dog was diagnosed with genetic deformity / Applicants paid $14,000 in medical treatment bills which were  projected to cost a further $10,000 / Applicants claimed the medical costs together with the purchase price from Respondent / Held: no written contract entered into / Sale of the dog was subject to the guarantee of acceptable quality / The dog was not acceptable quality because she was not free from minor defects / Applicants entitled to compensation for loss of value of the dog and to be paid reasonable losses stemming from the failure / Applicants entitled to refund of purchase price / Applicants not entitled to costs of maintaining the dog’s health where those costs exceed the price of the animal / Respondent ordered to pay $5,979.88 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant won online auction to purchase vehicle from Respondent / Respondent says his brother listed vehicle on auction without his permission / Applicant claimed $11,900 which is the difference between the winning bid and what the vehicle resold for 5 days later / Held: enforceable contract between Applicant and Respondent / Respondent breached contract / Remedy being difference between the market price of vehicle and the winning bid at auction / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $10,900 / Claim allowed.

Sanctions / adviser provided misleading advice / refused to respond to client’s concerns / failed to disclose conflict of interest and obtain written consent to continue representing client / charged excessive fee / failed to provide full description of services and fee / failed to send invoice describing service / failed to provide complaints procedure / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl5, cl6, cl17c, cl19e, cl19f, cl20a, cl22 / HELD / first appearance before Tribunal / higher end of moderate level misconduct / failure to disclose conflict most serious / acknowledgement of wrongdoing undermined by criticising client for not raising concern / does not appreciate why conflicts must be disclosed / excessive fees noteworthy / can only charge lower reasonable fee disclosed in service contract / credit for accepting decision and apology / no remorse to client / adviser censured / directed to undertake training / ordered to pay $5,000 financial penalty / ordered to refund fees of $19,061 within …

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants booked holiday accommodation online / Accommodation was advertised online by owner’s booking agent, the Respondent / Applicants paid $940.00 for two nights plus $800.00 bond / On arrival, Applicants discovered a dog on the property, key in the door, doors unlocked, no fence between holiday property and the other house on site, and parcels at the front door / Applicants advised owner of their concerns / Owner arriving about 50 minutes later / Owner also phoned her daughter who collected her dog from the property / Applicants also rang the Respondent to advise them of their concerns / Respondent advised by owner that she was on her way back to address the Applicants’ concerns so took no further action / Applicants secured alternative accommodation / Applicants claimed $2000.00, refund of $940.00 paid for accommodation, alternative accommodation costs and general damages / Held: Applicants were unhappy about the dog and parcels but …

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a caravan from Respondent / Respondent stated the chassis was in good condition / Applicant got the caravan home and found the chassis was covered in rust, rot and holes / Applicant raised issue with Respondent who offered a full refund upon return of the caravan / Applicant declined the offer as caravan was not road worthy to make the return journey / Applicant claims $1,359.75 plus the costs to bring the claim of $140.25 / Held: Respondent did misrepresent the condition of the chassis which induced the Applicant into the purchase / Tribunal is unable to award cost for bringing the claim / Compensation of $951.82 is awarded to Applicant which is 70% of the repair cost, taking into consideration the significant upgrade that the repair afforded the Applicant / Claim partially granted.

Objections to valuations by Council – Rating Valuations Act 1998, s 36 – Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948, s 19(8)(b) – Objector believed property had been valued incorrectly – Parties agreed to new rating valuation – No costs order.

Contract / Respondent was in process of setting up a tiny home business / Applicant engaged by Respondent and carried out works in relation to property / Applicant asked to stop working on the project and sent invoices for work completed / Applicant claimed payment for unpaid invoices / Held: valid and binding agreement exists between Applicant and Respondent / Doctrine of undisclosed principal applied / Amounts charged by Applicant reasonable / Applicant carried out work as invoiced and charges are in accordance with agreement between parties / Applicant entitled to costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $28,938.56 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Parties were in an relationship / Applicant planned a trip / Respondent agreed to take Applicant to the airport and look after her pets / Respondent did not take Applicant to the airport and she missed her flight / Applicant claimed for travel costs and kennel costs / Held: social arrangements unlikely to be legally enforceable unless parties demonstrate an intention to be bound by their promises / Promise was made but it fell short of being a contract / Applicant not entitled to sought order / Claim dismissed.