Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Applicant carried out carpet fitting for Respondent in 2021 / In 2023, Applicant claimed Respondent short changed him for an amended quote / Applicant sought $805.00 / Respondent sought costs on the grounds the claim was frivolous and vexatious / Held: not proven that amended quote was offered and accepted / No arguable basis for claim for extra payment / Claim was frivolous and vexatious / Appropriate to award costs / Applicant ordered to pay $360.00 costs to Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Car owner took company car to Respondent's business for new pipes to be fitted / Car owner unhappy with performance / Car owner carried out testing then had job redone / Applicant (car owner's business) claimed for dyna tune charge and repair costs / Held: service not provided with reasonable care and skill / Service and result of service not fit for purpose / Applicant entitled to cancel contract because failure is a failure of substantial character / Applicant entitled to repair costs refund / Applicant only entitled to partial refund of dyna tune cost / Respondent ordered to compensate Applicant $1,057.44 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant traded in car and upgraded for newer car / Respondent agreed to pay applicant $2,142 for older vehicle and sell him the newer car for $7,458 / Net effect that applicant owed Respondent $5,316 / Agreement to pay with fortnightly payments / After Applicant paid seven payments respondent sent repossession notice / Applicant voluntarily returned vehicle and now claims to be refunded the agreed price for the older car and the $1050 he paid towards newer car / Held: Respondent not entitled to repossess vehicle / Respondent breached agreement with Applicant / Outcome: claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $3,192.00 for loss incurred.

Hart Complaint based on disqualifying charges – convicted and sentenced to lengthy prisons sentence – As COA expired complaint upheld and closed.

Negligence / Collision occurred between cars belonging to applicants and the second respondent / Both parties had insurance / Second respondent held liable for damages / Insurers settled repair costs under insurance company arrangement / Rental costs were uninsured losses / Respondent’s insurer did not pay some of the charges to applicants / Claim for uninsured losses incurred by applicants when hiring rental car following collision / Held: respondent liable for unpaid rental charges / Direct losses caused by collision / Second respondent breached duty of care / Outcome: claim allowed, respondent to pay applicants $4,704.15

[2023] NZEmpC 225 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Prisha’s Hospitality (2017) Ltd T/A Royal Cambridge Indian Restaurant (Judgment (No 2) of Judge J C Holden, 8 December 2023) REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS – compensation awarded in mid-range band – PECUNIARY PENALTIES – shortfalls were modest in comparison to recent cases – 4-step process applied – penalties awarded – COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE - hearing merited two counsel for the Labour Inspector – costs awarded.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took vehicle to Respondent for engine repair / Respondent provided Applicant with quote for full engine replacement, but only replaced top part of engine in a bid to save costs for Applicant / After Respondent completed work, Applicant took vehicle to several mechanics who reported the engine number was the same as when the vehicle was registered / Applicant claimed he did not receive a full engine replacement and sought refund of $2,656.75 paid for the engine and associated repair costs / Held: Insufficient evidence Respondent did not use reasonable care and skill in repairing vehicle / Respondent had informed Applicant that only the top part of the engine had been replaced / Applicant did not provide Respondent with opportunity to remedy any potential failure / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased a bike from Respondent / Bike failed while been ridden and sustained frame damage / Applicant claimed bike not fit for purpose / Applicant sought a refund of purchase price / Held: bike was designed and sold for lower level advanced and intermediate trail riding / Damage sustained not consistent with normal use on lower and intermediate trails / Not established that bike was not fit for purpose / Claim dismissed.  

[2023] NZEmpC 218 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Knight (Costs Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 4 December 2023) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – costs awarded.

Liability and penalty / misconduct / licensee charged under s73a for kissing client without consent / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s3, s73a, s108, s110, s110A / HELD / licensee pled guilty / first appearance before Tribunal / conduct was at high level of misconduct / fell squarely within the concept of disgraceful conduct / conduct was non-consensual and invasive of client’s personal autonomy / went significantly beyond that in Complaints Assessment Committee 1904 v Bright [2022] NZREADT 23 / caused significant impact on client / licensee wrote apology letters to client and Tribunal / acted dishonestly during Committee investigation by advancing false alibi, but subsequently accepted full responsibility / costs reduced due to financial position / permanent name suppression appropriate given clean record, importance of rehabilitation and potential significant impact of publication on licensee’s health / censured / ordered to pay $7,500 financial penalty / 20 per cent costs ($4,422.40)

04.12.2023 | Judge M P Armstrong | Section 19(1)(b), Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 | Costs

Contract / Applicant purchased timber from Respondent / Respondent supplied treated timber for decks and stairs that were built in Applicant’s property development / Later during building of decks apparent that the timber shade did not match / Testing indicated timber supplied was not requested treated timber / Applicant claimed for $30,000.00 / Held: Applicant believed he was being supplied type of treated timber he had purchased / Evidence indicated Applicant was not supplied correct timber / Breach of contract established by evidence / Costs presented were reasonable for remedial work required / Respondent ordered to pay $30,000.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent ordered louvre roof from Applicant including installation / Respondent advised Applicant measurements for custom built flashings / Applicant revised invoice to reflect agreement reached relating to flashing / Respondent has not paid revised invoice amount of $16,339.00 / Applicant claimed damages / Held: louvre roof supplied was of acceptable quality / Respondent breached terms of contract by not paying invoice despite being supplied louvre roof / Applicant cannot claim debt recovery costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $16,339.20 / Claim allowed in part.