Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant’s recruitment services, Applicant supplied carpenter / Respondent failed to pay number of Applicant’s invoices / Respondent complained carpenter damaged a door, invoiced Applicant $845.79 for damage / Applicant deducted $467.79 from final invoice for damage, but balance of $2,257.71 remained unpaid along with older invoices / Applicant engaged debt collector, Respondent paid older invoices but not final invoice / Applicant claimed for outstanding invoice plus interest and collection costs / Held: contract stated Applicant not liable for damage caused by workers, Respondent not entitled to have any further amount waived for damaged door / Contract provided for 15% interest plus collection costs for overdue debts / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,098.74, being outstanding invoice, $141.03 interest, and $700 collection costs / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $3,800 / Respondent represented vehicle as being in great condition with no major issues / Transmission issues arose soon after purchase, mechanic advised Applicant repairs would cost $2,000–$3,000 / Applicant decided to sell car, explained fault in advertisement, received $1,800 / Applicant claimed $2,000 for loss suffered in sale, $120 for mechanics report, $90 for filing fee / Held: Respondent misrepresented vehicle, appeared to have deliberately concealed fault / Applicant entitled to compensation for losses suffered, but circumstances not met for costs award / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,120 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant entered sale and purchase agreement and building contract with Respondent / Delays pushed completion and settlement dates further than agreed / Applicant claimed damages for inordinate delay, being rental during additional time, storage costs, and tiling costs as concreting delays prevented tiler from starting / Held: much of delay due to unusual market conditions at time of build, outside Respondent’s control / Delay was inordinate, but insufficient evidence to place figure on how much of delay was unreasonable and unavoidable / Respondent liable only for tiling delay, as concreting not completed in time for tiler’s work, resulting in $873.83 cost increase / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $873.83 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Respondents purchased products and services from Applicant valued at $11,817.52 / Applicant claimed $10,684.41 from Respondents for overdue invoices / Respondents claimed they paid lower sum as originally quoted plus ten percent extra as good will gesture / Respondents disputed owing any further sum / Held: quotation provided by Applicant clearly stated it was only valid for 30 days  / As Respondent purchased the goods outside of the 30 days, quoted price no longer applied / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $10,684.41 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Duty of care / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle accident / Applicant's insurer covered vehicle repair costs / Applicant claimed $8,588.44 / Held: Respondent failed to ensure path he was driving into was clear when he drove into Applicant's vehicle / Respondent was negligent / Applicant did not contribute to cause of collision / Costs claimed reasonable for damage caused in collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's Insurer $8,588.44 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased fender and lockset from Respondent for $429.00 / Applicant claimed car parts were not of acceptable quality / Applicant claimed fender had dents and was scrap quality while lockset was missing parts / Applicant sought refund / Held: fender was acceptable quality but lockset was not / Reasonable consumer would expect fender to have defects given its age and that it was being wrecked / Lockset was not as it was missing parts / 50 percent of parts’ purchase price ordered / Respondent liable to refund Applicant $214.50 / Applicant to return lockset on receipt of refund / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were involved in a car accident in a car park / Parties disagreed about circumstances of the collision / Applicant claimed $18,910.72 for vehicle repair costs / Held: both accounts were credible and both consistent with the evidence of the pattern of damages to the vehicles / Claim not proven to standard of “more likely than not” / Claim dismissed.

[2023] NZEmpC 208 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Maheno (Costs Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 21 November 2023) APPLICATION FOR COSTS ON GOOD FAITH REPORT – GUIDELINE SCALE – costs awarded.

Building / Contract / Respondent contracted Applicant to build a deck / Dispute arose pertaining to $19,337.22 invoice for deck framing / Applicant “walked off the job” after being told he would not be paid / Applicant claimed $19,337.22 for work completed / Respondent disputed invoice and counter-claimed $12,924.45, $6412.00 for balance already paid and remedial costs / Held: $12,925.22 was the starting point for the outstanding balance owed to Applicant / On the counter-claim, $1444.20 was deducted for over-charges by Applicant / Further $1923.11 deducted for remedial costs / Respondent ordered to pay the Applicant $9557.92 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant engaged Respondents’ plumbing services for renovation / Parties agreed work would be overseen by LPB plumber / During renovation, bathroom failed two council inspections, was flooded due to incorrect pipe connections, and there were issues with trench / Respondent’s LPB supervisor was only notified of job after issues arose, advised Applicant not to allow Respondents back on site / Applicant claimed $10,800 for remedial costs and reduction in value / Held: Respondents did not provide services with reasonable care and skill / Respondents’ failure to put LPB supervision in place, after saying they would, was substantial failure under CGA, and misleading conduct / Applicant entitled to remedial costs offset by additional contract costs / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $5850 / Claim allowed.    

Contract / Applicant engaged by Respondent to provide digging services in preparation for tiny home siting / Agreed Respondent would pay $2,730.05 for work / After work was carried out Respondent paid all but $555.66 of invoiced amount, 5 hours of digger and driver hire /  Dispute over whether fixed price due for work done or price based on time spent on job / Held: Applicant needed to be clearer that it intended to provide fixed price even if job was carried out in less time than priced / Respondent already paid actual time spent by Applicant on his job / Claim dismissed.

[2023] NZEmpC 201 Reddy v Employment Relations Authority (Costs Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 17 November 2023) COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – reduction for financial position.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent prepared and laid lawn seed on Applicant’s lawn / Applicant claimed $4,132.00, price for preparation and laying of lawn / Held: preparation of lawn not done with reasonable care and skill / Resulting lawn was not fit for purpose / Evidence indicated that the lawn need to be started again / Respondent ordered to pay $4,132.00 / Claim allowed.