Disputes decisions
Read a summary of disputes heard by disputes panels and the panel decisions, or download the panels’ full reports. The full reports include details of the costs awarded and to which party. Other retirement village dispute-related decisions are also listed.
2014 disputes
2014-3 P Devadatta, G Duindam, and E Malloy v Summer Homes (Acre Court Retirement Village)
The disputes panel ruled on a number of matters:
- The disputes panel found that the residents were entitled to see the invoice and other documents relating to insurance premiums payable, invoices for items included in calculations of the weekly fee, and an itemisaton of what is included in each item in budget figures as far as reasonably practicable.
- The disputes panel dismissed claims over insurance costs included in payments made by the residents and over aligning the insurance and the village financial year.
- The panel also dismissed a claim concerning breach of its obligation to make the communal area available to residents, but ordered the operator to consult with the applicants about its decision to place a mini gym and additional television set with SKY TV in the communal lounge/dining area.
- The disputes panel found no basis on which to make any orders concerning the time taken to repair a hot water system, as neither a lack of long-term maintenance or a lack of a process to deal with repairs were identified.
2014-3 Decision with Addition of Dates for Compliance Orders, P Devadatta, G Duindam, and E Malloy v Summer Homes, 5 September 2014 (PDF 189.92 KB, Sep 2014)
2014-3 Decision and Report, P Devadatta, G Duindam, and E Malloy v Summer Homes, 20 August 2014 (PDF 473.98 KB, Sep 2014)
2014-2 E H Maddocks v Epsom Village Partnership
This dispute concerned the correct deduction for the village operator to make from the proceeds of sale of the unit in relation to its refurbishment. The disputes panel found that the village operator was entitled to deduct the full amount and ordered the applicant to pay toward the village operator's legal costs.
2014-2 Decision E H Maddocks v Epsom Village Partnership (PDF 168.26 KB, Sep 2014)
2014-1 W K M Killian v Stonehaven Village Trust
This dispute concerned the validity of the Trustees in terminating the Licence to Occupy (LTO) agreement of the applicant. There was also dispute about the validity of the service charges the Trustees claimed were owed by the applicant. The dispute decision determined whether the termination process was correct, what fees should be paid under the LTO, and whether the applicant was entitled to any compensation beyond the sale price of the unit.
2014-1 Decision W J M Killian v Stonehaven VillageTrust (PDF 431.18 KB, Jun 2014)
2013 disputes
2013-1 A F and C Barnes Family Trust v Anglican Care (Waiapu) Ltd
The dispute concerned the interpretation of an Occupation Rights Agreement as to what should be valued for the purposes of calculating the exit payment due. The correct method of arriving at the valuation was also in dispute. The decision was in favour of the valuation criteria and method used by the operator.
This decision also covered whether the Retirement Villages disputes panel had jurisdiction to determine the dispute notice. The disputes panel determined that there was jurisdiction to determine the dispute notice lodged by the applicant.
2013-1 Costs Decision: A F and C Barnes Family Trust v Anglican Care (Waiapu) Ltd, 13 December 2013 (PDF 146.52 KB, Jan 2014)
2013-1 Decision Form: A F and C Barnes v Anglican Care (Waiapu) Ltd, 20 September 2013 (PDF 46.97 KB, Jan 2014)
2013-1 Decision: A F and C Barnes Family Trust v Anglican Care (Waiapu) Ltd, 20 September 2013 (PDF 235.33 KB, Oct 2013)
2013-1 Ruling No 1: A F and C Barnes Family Trust v Anglican Care (Waiapu) Ltd, 15 March 2013 (PDF 162.33 KB, Jan 2014)
2013-2 Perry Foundation v J Waters Estate and H Murray
Two dispute notices were given by the trustees of the Perry Foundation, the operator of the the Perrinpark retirement village. Both dispute notices were on similar terms concerning a dispute over the amount properly payable to the respective respondents from the proceeds of sale of units at Perrinpark.
The disputes panel found partly in favour of the applicants and made orders on various specific amounts that made up the amounts payable to the two respondents.
2013-2 Decision Form - Final: Perry Foundation v H Murray, 20 December 2013 (PDF 40.84 KB, Jan 2014)
2013-2 Decision Form - Final: Perry Foundation v J Waters Estate, 20 December 2013 (PDF 41.38 KB, Jan 2014)
2013 Costs Decision: Perry Foundation v J Waters Estate and H Murray, 20 December 2013 (PDF 170.97 KB, Jan 2014)
2013-2 Amended Decisions on Both Dispute Notices (Perry Foundation v J Waters Estate and H Murray), 14 November 2013 (PDF 355.68 KB, Nov 2013)
2013 High Court decision: NZHC 576
Acting in a representative capacity on behalf of two former residents of Perrinpark Retirement Village, the plaintiffs brought proceedings to the High Court.
The Court looked at whether or not the parties were bound by the dispute resolution provisions contained in their site agreements. The Court also looked at whether or not these provisions amounted to a consumer arbitration agreement.
The Court held that the dispute resolution procedure set out in the site agreement applied and ordered the proceedings brought by the plaintiffs to the High Court be stayed.
2011 disputes
CIV-2011-004-002618: Jacqueline Robinson, Stephanie Loveday v Oceania Village Company Limited
This was a successul appeal against the decision of the Disputes Panel below (2011-2).
Personal representatives of Mrs Parker (now deceased) filed an appeal with the District Court in Auckland claiming that the decision of the Disputes Panel was incorrect in fact and law and that the panel was not entitled to set aside the valuation of an expert valuer witness who had been duly appointed under the terms of a formal licence to occupy.
The Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the matter be remitted back to the Disputes Panel in its entirety so that a full hearing could be conducted.
CIV-2011-004-002618: Jacqueline Robinson, Stephanie Loveday v Oceania Village Company Limited (PDF 619.46 KB, Jul 2013)
In 2013 Oceania and the Estate reached a settlement and the dispute was withdrawn prior to a rehearing taking place.
2011–2: Oceania Village Company (No 2) Ltd v M Parker
The dispute between the parties was whether or not a valuation obtained in relation to that cottage binds the parties. The parties differed over what was being valued - the valuer valued the licence to occupy the cottage, whereas the operator contended that the physical cottage should have been valued.
The disputes panel ordered that the parties engage a registered valuer on the basis that the object of the valuation was the physical cottage.
2011-2 Oceania Village Company (No 2) Ltd v M Parker (PDF 197.1 KB, Sep 2013)
See the related appeal decision above.
2011–1: Withdrawn
This dispute was withdrawn.
2010 disputes
2010–1 Upton v Oceania Village Company (No 2) Ltd
The dispute was over the calculation of the amount that the resident was entitled to receive from the operator on termination of her licence to occupy.
The panel determined the statutory interpretation of ‘current market value’ and calculated the amount owing to the resident on termination accordingly.
2010-1 Upton v Oceania Village Company (No 2) Ltd (PDF 900.49 KB, Sep 2013)
2009 disputes
2009–3 S &A Oliver, C&E Fenn, C&J Smith, J Sheahen, J Benson, J Laidlaw v Oceania Village Co
The residents claimed that the services and facilities they were promised at the time they purchased their units had not all been provided by the operator and so they should not be held to the condition to pay the deferred management fee.
The operator submitted that the dispute notice did not disclose a cause of action capable of determination or remedy. Alternatively it submitted that if there was a cause of action the remedy was only capable of being awarded by the District Court and for that reason the dispute should be transferred there.
The panel concluded that it had jurisdiction to hear and determine the claims, and would not transfer the dispute to the District Court at that stage of the dispute. The dispute was heard but an adjournment given to allow the parties to negotiate a solution. A solution was reached resolving the dispute so the dispute decision was not required.
2009-3 S &A Oliver, C&E Fenn, C&J Smith, J Sheahen, J Benson, J Laidlaw v Oceania Village Co (No 2) Ltd (PDF 46.17 KB, Sep 2013)
2009–2 J Knight and C Knight v Perry Foundation
The dispute was over whether the operator was responsible for delays in marketing and selling a unit to the disadvantage of the resident, and whether the operator should therefore purchase the unit.
The disputes panel found the operator had not breached its site agreement or obligations to take all reasonable steps to sell the unit. The panel therefore declined to order that the operator purchase the unit or to award loss of opportunity costs.
2009-2 J Knight and C Knight v Perry Foundation (PDF 775.08 KB, Sep 2013)
2009–1 Knebel and Kenward v Metlifecare Kapiti Ltd
The dispute was over the response by the village operator to complaints from a number of residents that a nuisance had been created by the use of a fish smoker by another resident. The applicants were not willing to postpone the complaints and disputes process until the user of the fish-smoker returned from overseas.
The panel member concluded that that the issue was fundamentally about the smoker and that the dispute notice should have been with the user of the fish-smoker (who was not a party to the hearing) rather than with the operator. As a disputes panel does not have the power to order a non-party to comply with its obligations under an occupation right agreement, the panel member declined to provide a remedy.
2009 - 1 Knebel and Kenward v Metlifecare Kapiti Ltd (PDF 245.67 KB, Sep 2013)
2008 disputes
2008–1 Morrell v Selwyn Foundation
This dispute concerned notifications given to a resident, initially that a hospital was to be rebuilt on a specific site, but subsequently that the hospital would be sited elsewhere. The remedies sought by the resident were that the operator build a hospital at the site initially notified and return the temporary hospital to a rest home.
The dispute panel member concluded that the dispute was outside the scope of section 53(a) of the Act and that the panel did not have the power to provide the remedies sought.
2008 – 1 Morrell v Selwyn Foundation (PDF 369.3 KB, Sep 2013)
2007–4 Perry, Emery, Maunder v Waitakere Group Ltd
The dispute notice from three residents claimed the operator had failed to comply with regulations requiring the operator to keep one or more financial institutions accounts in the name of the village and failed to pay into any such account money received by the respondent as operator in connection with the village.
The disputes panel member found that the operator was complying with the regulations and the Deed of Supervision.
2007-4 Perry, Emery, Maunder v Waitakere Group Ltd (PDF 110.59 KB, Sep 2013)
2007–3 Van der Hulst v Dutch Village Trust
This dispute concerned a number of matters including the Village Manager and contractors entering the resident’s unit without consent or agreement, and replacing the bench top, hob and sink without consultation about the type to be installed. A number of remedies were sought, including a claim for damages, which the disputes panel declined.
2007-3 Van der Hulst v Dutch Village Trust (PDF 81.28 KB, Sep 2013)
2007–2 Bentley v Summerset Management Group
This dispute related to the internal transfer of a retirement village resident from independent accommodation to more supported accommodation - from a villa to a serviced apartment. The applicant sought a refund of most of the charges plus interest and compensation.
The disputes panel did not uphold the complaints.
2007-2 Bentley v Summerset Management Group (PDF 73.7 KB, Sep 2013)
2007 disputes
2007–1 Brown v Metlifecare Kapiti Ltd
The resident claimed that the operator was dictating procedures applicable to the refurbishment requirements on termination of a licence to occupy, which are not in accordance with the resident’s contractual rights and obligations.
The panel found in favour of the applicant and ordered that the operator could not impose its preferred procedure for refurbishment.
2007-1 Brown v Metlifecare Kapiti Ltd (PDF 44.92 KB, Sep 2013)
Related Information
Links related to this article:
