Wellington tribunal rejects claim for return of garden bench amid loan-or-gift dispute

The Disputes Tribunal in Wellington denied Hannah Bell’s claim for the return of a wooden garden bench from her neighbour, Wiremu Rangi. It also denied her request for NZ$2,000 in legal costs and made no monetary award, including the alternative NZ$300 amount.

Bell said she had lent the bench until she had room for it again; Rangi said he understood it to be a gift. The tribunal concluded that Bell had not proved a return condition, but stressed that its decision did not establish that the bench was gifted.

The tribunal said the presented text permitted Bell’s interpretation that Rangi was allowed temporary use, but did not specify a return date or expressly require him to return the bench. Nor did it expressly say the bench was a gift.

Bell referred to a purchase receipt and other messages, including messages she said required return, but the judgment recorded that neither the receipt nor those messages was included in the hearing record. There was also no later message showing her request for return or Rangi’s refusal.

Even if a receipt established that Bell bought the bench for NZ$300, it would not establish what the parties agreed when she handed it over. Rangi’s account of a gift was also unsupported by a separate record or witness and did not prove a gift.

Because Bell sought the order, she had to establish the return condition or another basis for a present right to possession. The tribunal also found no evidence that the claimed legal costs had been incurred or explanation of why NZ$2,000 would be a fair remedy.

Bell submitted that she bought the bench and lent it temporarily, telling Rangi he would need to return it once she had room. She said she later asked for it back and he refused, and argued that she had never clearly transferred ownership.

Rangi argued that the initial text did not say he had to return the bench. He said he understood their handover conversation as a gift, while accepting that the text did not expressly call it one and that he had no separate record or witness to support his account.

The dispute arose after Bell allowed Rangi to take the wooden bench for use on his patio. The presented message told him he could use it there and collect it that weekend; the judgment treated repeated entries of that text as one message, not separate evidence.

The decision resolves Bell’s claim on the evidence available at the close of the hearing. It leaves the terms of the handover, and whether the bench was a gift, unresolved.