Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant contracted Respondent to manage his rental property / Applicant became aware that services were not being carried out pursuant to the contract / Applicant discovered maintenance and repair services were carried out by a fictitious entity created by Respondent / Respondent did not carry out inspections, repairs or lodge bond money as required / Applicant incurred numerous costs as a result / Applicant sought $25,524.32 for a partial refund of management fees and damages for multiple breaches of contract / Held: Respondent repeatedly breached the contract by failing to carry out the services it was contracted to provide / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $10,350.85 and additional damages of $4,720.82 for breaches, totalling $15,071.67 / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant engaged Respondent to manage his rental property while he resided overseas / Applicant became worried about Respondent’s management services, found they were not being carried out pursuant to contract / Issues included poor management of maintenance, failure to provide inspection reports, failure to monitor or remedy tenant damage and failure to lodge bonds / Applicant claimed $25,524.32 for partial refund of management fees and damages for multiple breaches of contract / Held: Respondent repeatedly breached contract by failing to carry out services it was contracted to provide / Reasonable for Respondent to refund for services not delivered / Applicant also entitled to damages for Respondent’s misleading and deceptive conduct / Respondent ordered to pay $10,350.85 refund and $4,720.82 damages / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent for $41,000.00 / Applicant claimed Respondent misled him as to cause of noise in car’s engine / Respondent told Applicant problem had been identified by mechanic as brake pads needing replacement, and supplied invoice to support diagnosis / Later turned out issue was with transfer box, a much more expensive repair / Applicant provided evidence that Respondent had manipulated invoice from mechanic / Applicant claimed cost of repairs and Tribunal fee / Held: Respondent induced Applicant to enter contract by misleading him as to the nature of the fault and cost of repair / Applicant entitled to $11,603.00 repair costs / Tribunal fee cannot be awarded / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent fix a leak in the guest toilet at her property / Respondent examined leak and provided quote of $1,983.75 / Quote was accepted and work was completed / Applicant considered the task a simple fix and disputed invoice amount / Applicant was invoiced the same amount as the quote, but considered a reasonable charge to be $977.50 based on time spent and material costs used / Applicant paid $977.50 and believed no further sum was owing on the contract / Applicant brought a claim seeking declaration of non-liability for the $1,006.25 balance of invoice / Held: Applicant was liable to pay Respondent the full balance owing / Applicant had approved quote and was in breach of contract for non-payment / Claim dismissed / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1,006.25.

Muller – complaint by police of misconduct for dishonesty offending while working as a security guard – misconduct proved although discharged without conviction on criminal charges – cancellation of COA by agreement.

Payment or Contribution to Costs of Treatment - Clause 1 and 2, Schedule 1 ACC Act 2001. Whether the Corporation was correct in declining to fund further costs of treatment and travel to attend treatment.  The Corporation was incorrect in declining costs for treatment and associated travel. Thus, the decision is reversed.  The appellant’s need for treatment arises from her head injury of 21 January 1992 and the subsequent head injuries she suffered. Outcome: appeal allowed.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent paid Second Applicant's invoice for re-roofing of property / Respondent did not pay First Applicant's invoice for scaffolding for Second Applicant's roofing job / Applicant claimed $3,485.08 payment / Held: no binding contract existed between First Applicant and Respondent / Binding contract existed between Second Applicant and Respondent / First Applicant misled Respondent as to whether the price quoted for roofing job included or excluded scaffolding / Respondent not entitled to pay invoiced amount for scaffolding on either contractual or quasi-contractual basis / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted to purchase caravan from Respondent and paid deposit / Applicant purported to cancel contract and offered to cover Respondent's incurred costs / Applicant claimed refund of $28,600.00 deposit / Held: no agreement that deposit was non-refundable / Applicant's attempt to cancel contract was accepted by Respondent / Applicant not required to purchase caravan / Applicant liable for any costs or losses Respondent incurred due to cancellation / Respondent entitled to retain $11,500.00 of deposit / Respondent ordered to pay $17,100.00 for losses / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a new car from Respondent / Applicant unhappy with several aspects of purchase, including delay between paying deposit and final purchase, charge for ceramic coating, representation that car would have mobile phone app and temperature control when it did not, and failure of surround camera resulting in an accident and insurance claim / Applicant sought $27,030.00 from Respondent for losses and costs / Applicant also claimed he suffered emotional stress as a result of his dealings with Respondent / Held: claims regarding delay and ceramic coating not proven / Applicant accepted absence of mobile phone app before contract was finalised / Respondent did misrepresent ability to programme car’s temperature / Car was not of acceptable quality / Camera was faulty but this did not cause accident / Issues with car was loss of amenity for which Applicant should be compensated / Applicant unable t…

Contract / Applicant was a flatmate of the Respondents / Applicant paid a bond of $800 / When Applicant moved out, Respondents withheld the bond claiming the Applicant’s cat had damaged the sofa / Applicant claimed for bond refund and overpaid rent / Respondents counterclaimed for compensation for repair costs of the sofa / Held: claim that the cat caused damage to the sofa was not supported by evidence / Rent was found to be overpaid by seven days / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $1040, bond and overpaid rent / Claim granted and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased outdoor furniture from Respondent for $4,596 / Wooden framing showed signs of deterioration after 3 years / Furniture was outside warranty / Respondent offered a credit of 50 percent of purchase price / Applicant sought reasonable remedy / Held: furniture was not fit for purpose / Furniture was not suitable for outdoor use it was intended for / Not practical to replace furniture as model has been discontinued / Respondent ordered to refund furniture costs of $4,596 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) 2004 / Parties were involved in road collision / Applicant’s vehicle was a write-off / Applicant and insurer claimed $26,361.95, comprising $33,000 pre-accident value of car, $793.50 towing and salvage costs, less $7,383.25 sale price of wreck / Held: Respondent caused collision / All evidence suggested Respondent’s vehicle crossed centre line and hit Applicant’s vehicle / Costs claimed were reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $26,361.95 / Claim allowed.