Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants entered agreement with Respondent for sale and purchase of property / Applicants claimed Respondent failed to provide diesel generator and packhouse stove as provided in chattel list, and misrepresented underfloor insulation / Applicants claimed $7,840.83 compensation / Respondent accepted liability for diesel generator and contribution to costs of rubbish removal and keys / Held: claimed value of $1,500 for missing generator was reasonable / Not proven that packhouse stove was included on chattel list / Not proven that Respondent misrepresented level of insulation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $1,842.50 / Claim allowed in part.

Diligence and due care / professional practice / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl22, cl26a, cl26b, cl26d, cl26e, cl28b, cl28c / HELD / breach of cl1 / adviser withheld from complainant information about how to check status of visa application herself despite two requests / breach of cl22 / failed to issue invoice to complainant upon payment of adviser’s fees / breach of cl26a, cl26d, cl26e / failed to send complainant’s file to Authority despite multiple requests, and has not shown he had a file or a well-managed filing system / breach of cl26b / failed to make timely updates as to status of visa application and failed to inform complainant of request from INZ for more evidence / breach of cl28b / failed to inform INZ that adviser’s licence expired and could no longer represent complainant and her partner / breach of cl28c / failed to advise complainant and her partner about expired licence and where they could get assistance / complaint upheld

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought caravan from Respondent / Applicant discovered caravan was leaking / Applicant claimed compensation for repair costs and hiring caravan during repairs / Held: sale and purchase of caravan was private sale / Caravan's representation of excellent condition should be viewed in context of its age / Not proved to required standard that representations made by Respondent were incorrect / No misrepresentation and inducement / Claim dismissed.

Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $600 / Applicant found evidence of water ingress in vehicle / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price plus costs / Held: Respondent used vehicle as a farm car until an incident where it got stuck on side in an overflowing creek / Respondent conveyed to Applicant no water ingress in the vehicle / Applicant relied on Respondent’s statement when agreeing to purchase vehicle / Applicant induced into contract by misrepresentation / Applicant entitled to damages / Total costs and losses incurred by Applicant comfortably exceeded amount claimed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Respondent approached Applicant to develop machine that could cut a block of firewood into kindling in one process / Applicant said he could produce such a machine, but would need to undertake research / After investigation, Applicant unable to construct requested machine / Applicant claimed $5,771.02 for research and development expenses, plus costs related to hearing / Held: claim depended on parties’ agreement and reasonable expectations / Respondent not obliged to cover Applicant’s research and development costs / If parties had agreed Applicant would investigate whether it was possible to develop machine suiting Respondent’s requirements and Applicant had warned it might not be possible, then Respondent would be liable for Applicant’s costs / However, Applicant reassured Respondent that he could develop machine, and Respondent reasonably relied on Applicant’s expertise / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Quantum meruit / Applicant engaged by Respondent for home renovation project / Applicant did not send formal building contract to Respondent until 9 months into preliminary work / Respondent’s bank and solicitor raised concerns with contract / Attempts to amend contract to satisfy all parties were unsuccessful / Respondent engaged a different builder / Applicant claimed, on a quantum meruit basis, $4600.00 costs for preliminary work / Held: parties engaged with each other on expectation contract would be formalised / Preliminary work was never to be charged directly / By not sending contract earlier, or entering agreement for payment for preliminary work, Applicant took risk that contract may not be finalised / Respondent did not simply change her mind, but was prevented from signing contract as bank would not approve it / Respondent not liable to pay any amount towards Applicant’s claimed costs / Claim dismissed.

Liability / misconduct / licensee charged under s73ciii for acting in transaction without having any direct contact with client, and inserting client’s signature and initials on contractual documents without authority / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s73, s126 / Professional Rules 2012, r5.1, r6.3, r9.6, r9.7, r12.2, r 12.3 / HELD / licensee did not attend hearing & admissions made prove charges / instructions were given by vendor’s daughter or assistant without proper authority from owner / breach of r9.6 as agency agreement invalid / breach of r9.7, r12.2 & r12.3 / licensee inserted signatures and had no contact with client / breach of r5.1 / obligation to communicate directly with client is fundamental to real estate work / breach of r6.3 / licensee’s conduct was wilful / attempted to conceal wrongdoing and lied to supervisor / charge upheld / penalty decision to follow

Contract / Applicant provided workshops and coaching for self-development / Respondent agreed to attend workshops and coaching at a discounted price / Respondent could not pay total cost and asked to pay in instalments / Applicant claimed balance owing $2387.50 / Held: Respondent fully informed of programme, accepted offer to participate and made an initial payment / Respondent agreed to participate and to pay total cost / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2387.50 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to reroof their commercially tenanted house / Reroofing rescheduled due to series of delays / Applicant's tenants present in building when Respondent went to do work / This posed as a health and safety hazard / Respondent claimed it was made clear building needed to be empty for duration of reroofing / Applicant subsequently contacted another roofing company / Applicants claimed $15,456.00 / Held: Respondent unable to prove they had communicated building needed to be vacant / Applicant justified in cancelling contract / Respondent should bear costs of scaffolding and freight / Respondent not liable to pay difference in contract price claimed by Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,748 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 / Applicants loaned money to Respondents for purpose of car repairs / Loan to be paid by monthly installments with annual interest rate / Balance of loan refinanced and additional amount loaned / New loan fell into arrears and Respondents stopped making payments / Held: Applicant did not act responsibly in making loans / Applicant failed to comply with requirements for continuing disclosures / Respondents entitled to statutory damages for Applicant’s breaches / Lenders have responsibility to make reasonable inquiries before entering into an agreement / Applicant cannot recover any of the costs of borrowing on new loan / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants bought land and home development package / Respondent hired to build home on land / Fixed price building contract / Applicants advised that due to Covid-19 impacts the price needed to increase / Applicants accepted on condition no further increases would occur / Respondent cancelled contract before any deposit paid / Applicants claim there was repudiation of the contract / Applicants had to hire new building company at a much higher expense / Held: no valid cancellation of contract / Applicants entitled to amount claimed / Outcome: claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicants $30,000. 

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Accident Compensation Act 2001 (ACA) / Applicant engaged Respondent for dental services / Respondent gave Applicant five fillings, Applicant paid $1,790 / Applicant had ongoing pain after dental work / Four fillings had been placed over active decay, had to be replaced / Applicant claimed $13,425.00 damages / Held: Respondent’s work in relation to four of the five fillings was not provided with reasonable care and skill and was not fit for purpose / Failure was of substantial nature / Respondent liable to refund Applicant price paid for four of the fillings / Applicant could not claim compensation for pain suffered following treatment, likely personal injury barred by ACA / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,432.00 / Claim allowed in part.