Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Legal fees / Applicant engaged Respondent to act on an employment matter / Respondent’s engagement letter provided fee estimate of $2,500 to $3,500 plus GST / Applicant paid 1,900.00 / Respondent issued a further invoice totalling $1,357.00 / Applicant’s employment settlement included contribution of $4,500 plus GST ($5,175.00) to Applicant’s legal fees by former employer / Applicant claimed payment covered total fee owed / Applicant claimed refund of $1,900.00 paid to Respondent and Tribunal application fee / Respondent claimed entitled to retain $1,900.00 / Respondent counterclaimed $1,456.67, for amount due plus interest / Held: amount paid by Applicant’s prior employer to Respondent exceeded fees payable / Respondent’s claim for filing fee not allowed / Respondent’s application for payment of additional fees dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay $1,900 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant and respondent registered to produce a dance performance at a festival / The working relationship between applicant and respondent broke down / Applicant claims that respondent is liable for half the cost of production based on partnership arrangement / Held: partnership was not equal and no other basis upon which respondent should pay all or part of the costs sought / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased ex-rental projector from Respondent for $383.99, for use at club meetings / Projector used at 12 meetings / Projector stopped working suddenly / Respondent assessed projector, concluded it was not worth repairing / Applicant claimed $300 compensation / Held: Applicant communicated intended purpose for projector, relied on Respondent’s expertise / Projector was fit for purpose, used for intended purpose on 12 occasions / Applicant knew projector was ex-rental, had been well used, as reflected in price much lower than cost of new projector / Respondent not liable for projector failing unexpectedly, particularly as cause of failure unclear / Respondent did not make any misrepresentations about projector / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked holiday through Respondent / Booking included accommodation in stopover city / Stopover accommodation was booked for two nights / Outgoing flight left stopover city at 12:15am of second night / Applicant believed she would stay at hotel on second night, depart stopover city at 12:15am following night / Applicant missed flight / Applicant claimed Respondent misled her / Respondent sought compensation for costs incurred as result of missing flight / Held: Applicant’s itinerary clearly stated time and date of flight / Applicant was asked to check itinerary before accepting and paying / Applicant confirmed acceptance of itinerary / Applicant’s loss was not due to failure by Respondent to provide service with reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to install flooring / Applicant unhappy with Respondent’s work / Respondent tried to fix issues identified by Applicant / Applicant wanted to cancel contract, requested refund and for Respondent to uplift and remove floor / Respondent offered to vary contract / Parties agreed Respondent would supply materials at discounted price and Applicant would engage different installer to finish job / New installer told Applicant floor would need to be taken up and started from scratch / Applicant claimed full refund of $3835.80 / Held: insufficient evidence that defects in Respondent’s work were substantial or could not be remedied by Respondent or another installer / Applicant affirmed contract when he agreed to variation / Applicant not entitled to refund / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant to paint holiday house owned by Respondent / Applicant moved into Respondent's property and wanted to purchase property / Applicant claimed to be paid $6,349.61 for repair costs / Held: Respondent not bound by enforceable agreement to sell / Applicant has not shown Respondent received benefit and had been enriched by work on property / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Two days after purchase Applicant experienced problems with car / Applicant took car to mechanic who told him the CV joint and strut mount on the front passenger side needed replacing / Turbo also needed replacing / Held: the Act applies / Problems with the car were of substantial character / Applicant entitled to reject car and obtain refund of purchase price / Respondent to pay Applicant $8500.00 / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Respondent provided Applicant with cleaning services quote / Applicant claims Respondent's cleaner scratched copper sink in the bathroom during the trial clean / Applicant’s insurer seeks to recover damages / Applicant claims Respondent charged her three times the agreed price / Respondent denies liability for the scratch / Respondent claims additional pricing due to extra services involved in a first time trial and counterclaims $10,000.00 / Held: On balance of probabilities, Respondent’s staff caused the sink scratches / The Applicant’s insurer is entitled to recover the loss it indemnified / The additional costs the Respondent claims should have been included in the initial pricing / The Respondent must pay the Applicant’s insurer $1,277.00 / The Applicant’s insurer shall refund the Applicant’s excess fee / The Applicant must pay the Respondent $95 for the cleaning trial / Claim allowed / Counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased electric bike from Respondent / Applicant said assurance from sales staff that bike was able to charge phone a critical factor in purchase / Applicant discovered phone could not be charged from bike / Applicant claimed $13,484 refund and legal costs / Held: bike of acceptable quality and fit for purpose / No right to reject bike and contract remains binding / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased property from Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to provide keys to all exterior doors / Applicant claimed losses of $2,070 / Held: Respondent breached contract by not making available keys to all exterior doors / Additional legal costs unable to be claimed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $573.30 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent contracted Applicant to replace roof at property / Applicant dropped off materials to Respondent's property / Respondent unhappy that the new roofing materials had a different profile from existing proofing / Applicant refused to remove materials from Respondent's property / Applicant claimed $13,473.40 for material costs, mark-up, trailer hire and labour / Held: no basis to find that materials were of unacceptable quality / Appropriate remedy is for Respondent to cancel the contract and consider options freely / Applicant ordered to remove materials from Respondent's property / Claim dismissed.

Liability / misconduct / licensee found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct for giving false answer to question about safety of property and area / whether misconduct charges should be brought referred back to Committee / now charged under s73a or s73b / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s4, s72, s73 / Professional Rules 2012, r6.4 / HELD / vendor licensee arranging and meeting purchasers on site meets definition of real estate agency work as property was marketed by licensee’s agency / carried out work normally performed by agent and not vendor / vendor conducting services on own behalf complies with definition / licensee asked if property and area was good, not if it was safe / purchasers’ evidence not credible / licensee not deliberately untruthful as previous burglaries not at top of her mind in answering question if area was good / negligently withheld information which should have been provided but was not disgraceful or seriously incompetent or negligent / charges dismissed