The Carpet Company v Ms

In the case of The Carpet Company v Ms, the applicant, a carpet sale and installation company, pursued a debt claim against the respondent for the outstanding balance of a carpet installation contract. The dispute centred on whether the respondent had paid the remaining balance of the invoice after having made a deposit. The applicant alleged that the respondent had not paid the balance, while the respondent claimed she had paid the installer directly in cash. The case was heard by the Tribunal, which had to determine the onus of proof in such debt recovery cases and whether the respondent had discharged it.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant or the respondent bore the burden of proving the payment of the debt. The Tribunal considered the principles of debt recovery and the standard of proof required, which is the balance of probabilities. It concluded that the onus was on the respondent to prove that she had paid the debt, as the applicant had fulfilled its contractual obligations. The Tribunal assessed the evidence provided by both parties, including the signed customer acceptance form, which the Tribunal found to be unconvincing as it was not signed by the installer.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had not provided sufficient evidence to meet the required standard of proof. The respondent's evidence was vague, and her credibility was questionable. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent had paid the debt to the applicant or its agent. The Tribunal also noted that while the applicant's debt recovery efforts were delayed due to computer failures, this did not absolve the respondent of her obligation to prove payment. As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the applicant, ordering the respondent to pay the principal debt, the Tribunal application fee, and interest from the date of the initial debt recovery contact.

The final orders of the Tribunal required the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $1,689 as the principal debt, $148 as the Tribunal application fee, and $98.75 as interest in accordance with the Court Procedures Rules 2006 for the period from 13 December 2017 to 4 January 2019. The reasons for this decision were to be published under pseudonyms.