Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Tort / Respondent undertook works on footpath at entrance of Applicant’s driveway / Steel plate was placed on the site while concrete was drying, with traffic cones placed around it / Applicant stated his vehicle was damaged when he drove over steel plate / Applicant sought an order for car repair costs / Held: call logs from the Council confirmed that the Applicant knew about the steel plate / Respondent took due care and placed cones around driveway and notified affected residents / Evidence suggested that the Applicant removed traffic cones and intentionally drove over the steel plate which resulted in the damage to his vehicle / Respondent not liable for damage caused to the Applicant’s vehicle / Claim dismissed.

Costs of appeal - Claim for costs and disbursements. Outcome: costs awarded to Appellant, $1,524.00 costs and $242.55 disbursements.

Penalty / misconduct / licensee found guilty under s73ciii (wilful breach of Rules) for acting in transaction without direct contact with client, and personally inserting client’s signature and initial on documents without authorisation / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s3, s73, s110, s110A / Professional Rules 2012, r5.1, r6.3, r9.6, r9.7, r12.2, r12.3 / HELD / licensee sought to cover up wrongdoing when confronted by employer / did not engage with Tribunal until after liability decision issued / explanations not accepted / offending a serious example of misconduct / obligation to deal directly with client or someone with power of attorney is fundamental / conduct wilful and spanned entire transaction / no confidence licensee learned from wrongdoing or can be rehabilitated / credited for clean record, late apology, admitting facts at early stage and no party suffering financial loss / financial hardship not established / censured / licence cancelled / 50 per cent costs ($8,520)

Consumer law / Contract / Applicant purchased electric vehicle from Respondent / Applicant promised unlimited free super-charging for as long as he owned the vehicle / Respondent changed the charging station technology making them non-compatible with Applicant's model / Applicant paid $540.01 to retrofit his vehicle to make it compatible with new charging stations / Applicant claimed for a refund for retrofit / Held: all super-charging sites still available to Applicant / Reasonable assumption that charging technology would change over time and upgrade costs would be necessary  / Applicant's contract with the Respondent included “unlimited free super-charging” but was silent as to upgrade costs / Upgrade costs cannot reasonably be implied as a contractual term / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants inspected vehicle at Respondent’s premises / Purchase price was $12,000.00 / Applicants signed sale and purchase agreement which included statement that sale was conditional upon an appraisal of vehicle / Applicants paid $1,000.00 deposit / Appraisal found numerous defects with vehicle / Applicants notified Respondent they did not wish to proceed with purchase due to issues raised in appraisal / Applicants asked for their deposit back, but Respondent refused / Applicants claimed $1,000.00 refund of deposit / Held: Applicants  entitled to decline to buy car and have deposit back / Contract was conditional upon vehicle appraisal, which meant Applicants were not obliged to complete purchase if appraisal disclosed reasonable grounds for decision not to do so / Applicants had reasonable concerns and were justified in declining to proceed with purchase / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $1,000.00 / Claim allowed.

Tort / Trespass / Contract / Respondent issued Applicant three parking breach notices for parking in an apartment complex / Applicant’s son paid first notice ($95) / Applicant claimed $735 including a refund of $95.00 already paid / Applicant also claimed for an order that he was not liable to pay $640 in breach and administrative fees issued by Respondent / Held: Respondent did not have authority from body corporate to issue breach notices, infringement notices and additional fees it issued to the Applicant / Respondent must refund Applicant $95.00 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant claimed vehicle was struck by Respondent causing damage / Applicant claimed $4,995.99 for repair costs and additional compensation / Held: repair costs were reasonable and caused by Respondent's negligent driving / Applicant entitled to be compensated for repair costs / Agreement was between the Applicant and panel beaters / Applicant paid invoice on time and did not incur any interest or late fees / Applicant not entitled to any further compensation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,223.99 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant provided quote to First Respondent for interior and exterior painting of a large property undergoing extensive renovation / Contract price was $37,030.00 / First Respondent paid $21,700.00 / Applicant claimed $15,330.00 balance of invoice / First Respondent counter-claimed $30,000.00 based on quality of paint work and advice received that everything would need to be stripped back and started over / Counter-claim included damage to joinery and cost of scaffolding needed to carry out work / Held: failure to provide services with reasonable care and skill was of substantial character / Widespread defects with paint job and damage to new joinery / Accepted that paintwork would need to be stripped back and job started over / Reduction in value remedy available to Respondent was $36,225.00 quoted price for remedial work, minus $15,330 still to be paid on contract, being $20,895.00 / $10,000 cost of scaffolding reasonably foreseeable res…

Interpretation of decision - s 6 Accident Compensation Corporation Act 2001 (the Act). Appeal against decision that it was not a reviewable decision under the Act. Reviewer decision was correct. Outcome: appeal dismissed and Respondent entitled to costs.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to establish new mooring for his boat / Applicant noted challenges due to boat’s dimensions, but agreed / Applicant submitted application for new mooring, Council approved it / Applicant invoiced Respondent $6,704.63 / During cyclone, boat slipped mooring and went aground / Applicant claimed for unpaid invoice / Respondent counter-claimed for repair costs / Held: high risk of boat grounding at new mooring / Applicant met duty to exercise reasonable care and skill by informing Respondent about mooring options and depth issues / Applicant entitled to allow Council to exercise authority to determine whether site and mooring were suitable / Applicant entitled to payment of quoted price / Not proven that Applicant had any liability for damage to boat / Respondent ordered to pay $6,704.63 / Claim allowed and counter-claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant's insurer claimed $13,614.39 / Held: Respondent responsible for collision / Costs claimed by Applicant were reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $13,614.39 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to provide property management services / Applicant alleged Respondent breached contract, claimed compensation for 28 days of lost rent plus repair costs / Held: Respondent was Applicant’s agent and allowed to make decisions about tenancy on Applicant’s behalf / Respondent did not sign up six occupants for new tenancy, error regarding number of occupants had been brought to Applicant’s attention / Respondent did not breach contract by increasing rent or signing tenants onto periodic tenancy / Respondent did allow departing tenants to leave without serving out notice, but Applicant would not have suffered loss if she did not cancel prospective tenants / Respondent not entitled to retain $549.98 in rent paid by previous tenant to cover advertising and letting fee, as they had told Applicant they would waive right to those amounts / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $549.98 / Claim allowed in part.