Refund Ordered for Unperformed Fence Installation Service
📌 In brief
The applicant paid a deposit for a fence installation service but the respondent did not install the fence. Since the respondent could not prove any actual loss, the tribunal ordered a full refund of the deposit plus interest and fees.
⚖️ Legal holding
A party must prove actual loss to retain a deposit when they fail to perform the contracted service.
📖 Technical summary
The respondent must refund a deposit as they failed to prove actual loss.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The applicant proved she made a partial payment as a down payment for the fence installation.
- The respondent did not provide any evidence of actual loss to justify keeping the deposit.
- The respondent did not provide a specific date to complete the installation, showing failure to perform.
- The respondent did not respond to the request for a refund, indicating a lack of willingness to fulfill obligations.
- The applicant requested the refund due to ongoing delays, which the respondent did not address.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The respondent claimed they had purchased materials but did not provide evidence such as receipts.
- The respondent argued they were entitled to keep the funds without proving any actual loss.
- The respondent did not provide any proof of the work completed or materials used for the fence installation.
- The respondent did not offer a specific timeline for completing the installation despite multiple requests.
- The respondent did not engage in providing any concrete evidence to support their claim to retain the deposit.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The respondent must refund the deposit to the applicant.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the respondent should refund a deposit after failing to install a fence.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the applicant because the respondent did not provide any proof of actual loss.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act sections 118, 39, 42, and 49 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the respondent did not provide any evidence of actual loss.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have proof of any actual loss if they wish to retain a deposit.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence that mattered was the lack of proof of actual loss by the respondent.