Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent’s memorial company to supply two engraved headstones / Respondent’s Memorial company was sold to Second Respondent / Applicant was not given the opportunity to view headstones until day before unveiling / Name and family relationship were incorrect on headstones / Applicant complained but Second Respondent was not receptive to her concerns / Applicant arranged another stonemason and unveiling was postponed / Applicant sought cost of remedial work, travel costs associated with the cancellation of the unveiling, and compensation for hurt and humiliation / Held: unveiling was an important and emotionally difficult event for Applicant and her whanau / Applicant relied on the Second Respondent to do her job so the unveiling could be successful / Basic and inexcusable errors on the headstones showed a lack of care that was disrespectful and hurtful for Applicant / Second Respondent liable for $2,340.00 for remedial wor…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked 5-day trekking activity with Respondent / Applicant's horse kicked out at other horses during ride / Applicant elected to leave trek after discussion with Respondent / Applicant claimed $6,900 partial reimbursement of payment / Respondent counter-claimed compensation for costs associated with Applicant's claim and WorkSafe complaint / Held: Respondent had a duty to provide horse reasonably suitable for trekking / Not proven that Respondent failed to provide a horse that is reasonably fit / Veterinary advice did not recommend keeping horse away from trekking until the wound had fully healed / No evidence that other riders experienced problems or expressed concerns about the horse's physical health or temperament / Applicant had no grounds to cancel contract / No legal bases for Applicant to be held liable for Respondent's costs / Claim dismissed / Counter-claim dismissed.

Jurisdiction / Section 11 Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Parents of applicants died intestate / Applicants claim funeral costs against Respondents who is their sibling / Held: Disputes Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear a claim of money left intestate / Claim is struck out.

Contract / Applicant provide training services and courses in psychological first aid / Applicant contacted Respondent and offered its service to develop psychological first aid course / Applicant delivered pilot course after which Respondent decided not to offer the course to its members and staff / Applicant claimed $16,468.28 compensation for time and intellectual property / Held: Applicant unable to prove on balance of probabilities that it was engaged by Respondent to provide an agreed amount of future courses / Applicant not entitled to compensation for costs claimed / Disputes Tribunal unable to award costs to compensate for use of intellectual property due to lack of jurisdiction / Claim dismissed.

Liability / misconduct / licensee charged under s73a with misconduct for producing false valuation report four times in respect of property he was seeking to acquire an interest in / licensee did not attend hearing / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s73, s109A, s110 / HELD / licensee sought to pass off valuation report as legitimate and from reputable valuation company / licensee admitted facts underlying charge / Tribunal rejected explanation that it was impossible for valuations to occur during COVID-19 restrictions / forgery of valuation report is dishonest even though licensee would receive no financial benefit and vendors would suffer no loss had he been successful / honesty essential to achieving purpose of Act and maintaining public confidence in profession / conduct a marked and serious departure from required standard of conduct / conduct would be regarded by agents of good standing and reasonable members of the public as disgraceful / charges upheld / penalty decision to follow

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased second-hand digger from Respondent for $6,500.00 / Respondent claimed it had been serviced regularly / After purchase, Applicant arranged for mechanic to inspect / Several defects found and costs for servicing came to $6354.30 / Applicant claimed $5,000.00 towards repair costs as digger was not in reasonable working order and Respondent misrepresented it at time of sale / Applicant claimed digger’s value should have been $1,500.00 / Respondent claimed his comments about condition of digger were made honestly / Held: Applicant entitled to some compensation as digger not as described by Respondent / Work done by mechanic was extensive and considerably improved digger, which was old when Applicant brought it / Applicant’s decision to spend $6,534.30 on repairing machine, known to be old and well used, that was purchased for $6,500.00 questionable / Applicant has not provided any objective evidence th…

Contract / Applicant engaged by Respondent to install roofing at address / Respondent paid 50% deposit / Applicant claimed $4,905.26 remaining balance / Respondent claimed both roofs should have been re-roofed / Held: scope of agreement quoted price of $9,819.53 is for one roof only / Respondent breached contract for only paying 50% of agreed price / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,905.26 / Claim allowed.

Tort / Property / Nuisance / Trespass / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent are neighbours and there is no fence between their properties / Applicant would like a fence on part of the boundary between two properties and to build a bank / Applicant claimed Respondent liable to pay cost of retaining bank, legal fees and other costs incurred / Held: Applicant withdrew claim in relation to bank / Applicant and Respondent liable to pay half of additional cost associated with building small retaining wall / Applicant to organise construction of fence near portion of boundary between two properties / Respondent not liable to make any payment for any other costs or damages to Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,688.32 / Claim allowed in part.

Respondent leased commercial premises from applicant family trust / Respondent business struggled during covid / Despite some rent relief it had rent arrears / Arrears not paid / No agreement about ongoing use of premises / Respondent stayed in downstairs area but used toilets upstairs / Applicant claims for rent arrears and reinstatement costs for fluorescent lighting tubes / Applicants total claim is $15,735.47 / Respondent counter claims for spending on stock and increased business costs on basis applicant encouraged them to stay in business / Respondent says covid rent-relief should have been higher, and that there were significant roof leaks / Held: 20% reduction for leaking is appropriate / Respondent liable for lighting tubes / Trust not liable to pay business losses / Outcome: claim allowed, respondent liable to pay $13,464.22

[2023] NZEmpC 153 Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Ltd (Interlocutory Judgment (No 2) of Judge J C Holden, 15 September 2023) APPLICATION FOR STAY – interests of justice favour granting stay – Authority’s costs determination stayed for 28 days – stay will continue on condition money is paid into Court – application granted – APPLICATION FOR PARTIAL STRIKE OUT – no need to strike out – application declined – CHALLENGE TO OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE – parts of documents are to be disclosed to the extent they are relevant to the proceedings.

Negligence / Vehicle collision / Land Transport Act 1988 / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant and its insurer claimed $30,000 for damages to vehicle, including uninsured losses $2,640.99 / Held: Respondent responsible for crash by failing to give way at roundabout / Repairs claimed for damage to Applicant's vehicle supported by invoices provided /  Towing and rental costs reasonable but are unable to be claimed as it exceeds the Disputes Tribunal's $30,000 limit / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant purchased a house owned by the Respondent at auction / Prior to marketing the property, the vendor renovated the upstairs and downstairs bathrooms / Both had identical tiled showers / Applicant noticed cracked tiles in the shower which he discovered were due to a leak / Applicant claims Respondent breached the contract by failing to obtain building consent for the work on the showers and claims reimbursement for the repair work he has done ($53,065.48) / Held: a building consent or exemption is required from Council / Respondent breached the vendors warranty by having work done without consent / Applicant has inflated the work that was required to fix the two leaks / Applicant provided insufficient evidence that any additional costs incurred were necessary to remediate the leak / Applicant is entitled to compensation of $7,889.57 / Claim partially granted.