Woman's lawsuit against boyfriend for missed airport ride dismissed

In a recent case heard by New Zealand's Disputes Tribunal, a woman (referred to as CL) attempted to take her former boyfriend (HG) to court after he failed to fulfill his promise of driving her to the airport. Consequently, she missed her flight and incurred additional expenses, SSP reported. The court documents revealed that CL had requested her six-and-a-half-year partner's assistance in getting to the airport before an important concert she was attending with friends. He had also agreed to look after her dogs while she was away. However, he failed to follow through on his commitments, leading to her missing the flight and incurring unexpected costs, including hiring a shuttle service to the airport and boarding her pets at a kennel. Seeking reimbursement, CL filed a complaint with the Disputes Tribunal against HG.

The morning of the flight arrived, but HG didn't show up as arranged between 10:00 and 10:15 am. Additionally, he was unresponsive to calls made by CL. Consequently, she wasn't able to catch her flight, but she managed to salvage her trip. After returning from her vacation, CL chose to pursue legal action against her former boyfriend through the Disputes Tribunal, as it offered a quicker, more affordable, and less formal process compared to traditional courtrooms.

During the tribunal hearing, CL argued that HG had violated a "verbal contract" they had, but the court thoroughly examined whether their exchanges constituted a legally binding agreement. Ultimately, the Disputes Tribunal dismissed CL's claims, ruling that HG had no legal obligation to uphold his promises.

Tribunal referee Krysia Cowie emphasized that social arrangements made among partners, friends, or colleagues typically lack enforceability unless the parties have demonstrated a clear intention to be bound by their commitments. Cowie ruled, "When friends fail to keep their promises, the other person may suffer a financial consequence, but it may be that they cannot be compensated for that loss." With the understanding that CL and HG had made their agreement in the context of their friendship, the tribunal concluded that CL was not entitled to the reimbursement she sought, hence dismissing her claim.