Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Applicants stayed at holiday park every Summer for over twenty years / Applicants had a preferred waterfront site / Applicants unable to make January 2022 booking and moved it to following year / Applicants’ requested site was rebooked by prior guests / Respondent failed to notify Applicant prior to arrival / Applicants refused to accept alternative site / Applicants claimed $3,284.00 for accommodation and assorted expenses / Respondent counterclaimed $1,709.00 for cancellation fee and related costs / Held: Respondent breached contract with Applicants / Respondent should have notified Applicants in advance / Confirmation did not stipulate that Applicants had been allocated a different site / Applicants not required to meet obligations under contract / Applicants alternative accommodation expenses did not exceed holiday park costs / Applicants awarded $500 general damages / Claim allowed in part and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant inspected Respondent’s swing mooring / Applicant sent Respondent a report of the inspection and an invoice for $1,474.31 / Respondent disputed this amount and paid $579.60 /  Respondent’s boat broke free from the moor and grounded / Applicant seeks payment of balance of its invoice / Respondent counter claims seeking compensation for costs of recovering of the mooring and re floating the boat / Held: Evidence shows amount charged by Applicant for labour and materials was a reasonable price / Several factors that caused headrope to snap / Not proven that Applicants were liable for the boat slipping the mooring / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $579.60 / Counter claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Applicant said Respondent misrepresented car in process of selling it to him / Applicant claimed $1,1614.03 for car re-registration, compliance and unpaid road user charges / Held: Respondent did not misrepresent by saying car will cost to re-register / Respondent did not misrepresent by saying the car works fine / Respondent informed Applicant about unpaid road user charges / No grounds to award compensation / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to assist with demolition and building work / Project not completed by Respondent / Unclear from evidence what agreed price for the work was / Held: parties agreed that Applicant to be charged $30 per hour / Fair assessment of Respondent’s work on the project found to be 84 hours / Applicant paid $2,287 more than this and entitled to be repaid this by the Respondent

Contract / Quasi-contract / Dispute Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant asked by Respondent's employee to prepare reports on building defects / Applicant informed compensation for work will form part of liquidator's costs / Applicant claimed invoice $15,122.50 / Respondent disputed it owes any money to Applicant / Held: Respondent's employee have the ability to contract on behalf of Respondent / No contract between Applicant and Respondent / Respondent repackaged Applicant's report with minimal additional changes / Quasi-contract applies / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $15,122.50 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought car from Respondent / Applicant discovered car breaks required repair, and the body had rust issues and had likely been flood damaged / Applicant claimed $1,500 for repair costs / Held: misrepresentation not proven given the ambiguity of the wording and invitation to have car inspected / Respondent's reply not proven to be a false statement of fact / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants went to carpark operated by respondent / Bolts protruding from ground punctured applicants tyre / Applicants couldn't repair tyre and took an Uber home / Applicant returned next day to meet tow truck / Applicants claim for tyre repair and replacement kit, uber, train fare, and parking fee / Held: respondent owed a duty of care to carpark users and has breached this duty / Damage occurred before carpark entered so no contract existed to contract out of / Can't contract out of the Act / Costs claimed are actual and reasonable and reasonably foreseeable consequence of damage caused by bolts / Parking fee not included as it didn't arise from the damage / Outcome: claim allowed, respondent to pay applicant $843.09

Contract / Applicant opened credit account with Respondent / Claim related to two invoices with respect to hiring of equipment by a contracting employee of Applicant / Applicant claimed employee did not have authority to hire equipment and incur debt on behalf of Applicant / Authority lay with only one of Applicant’s employees whom the Respondent knew / Respondent brought a counterclaim for disputed invoices and collection costs / Held: Applicant’s contracting employee did not have authority to bind Applicant to invoices in dispute / Applicant not responsible for invoices issued by Respondent / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a remanufactured laptop from Respondent / Laptop stopped working after three years / Applicant claimed laptop was not of acceptable quality as it was not reasonably durable / Evidence from Respondent stated laptop was remanufactured so had a shorter lifespan than a brand new laptop / Laptop was only sold with a one year warranty / Held: evidence provided suggested not unreasonable for the laptop to only last for three years / Laptop could be considered to be reasonably durable / Laptop had a lower purchase price to reflect that the consumer was getting less than from a brand new laptop / Claim dismissed.

Sanctions / adviser failed to fulfil client’s requests for return of documents and fee after terminating instructions / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s3, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct, cl1, cl24b, cl24c, cl27b / HELD / third appearance before Tribunal / adviser neither honest nor professional / not first time adviser found to have lacked integrity / poor disciplinary record a significant aggravating factor / medical evidence provided in earlier complaint provides some context but not a justification for misleading client or breaching professional obligations / conduct comprises misconduct at higher end of spectrum as it involved intentional deceit of client over extended period / Tribunal has no power to order return of documents / financial penalty would be higher if refund was not directed / adviser censured / prevented from reapplying for licence for maximum period of two years / ordered to pay $7,000 financial penalty / ordered to refund fees of $3,495

Maritime law / Applicant seeks orders against the Second Respondents / Held: evidence shows third respondent has not been paid by any party / Second respondent has not paid third respondent the cost of shipping the containers internationally / Because they were not paid, third respondents were legally entitled to exercise a lien over the containers / Applicant entitled to payment of the shipping costs he paid to second respondent as second respondent has not paid those to third respondent / Claim allowed, Second Respondent ordered to pay NZ$11,771.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant parked on the side of narrow street / Respondent collided with Applicant's car door pushing it forward / Applicant claimed $2,000 for repair costs / Held: Respondent did not take sufficient care and caused damage to Applicant's vehicle / Applicant did not contribute to and is not responsible for the damage to Respondent's car / Applicant's repair costs are reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,000 / Claim allowed.