Car alarm firm loses case against rival

Car alarm distributor Mongoose New Zealand has lost a court case in which it sued a rival business over its claim in 1998 that Mongoose's top-of-the-line car alarm did not meet a certification standard.

In a reserved decision, Auckland District Court Judge Nicola Mathers found that Mongoose had failed to prove its case against Ultimate Security and its director in 1998, Mark Richards.

In September and October 1998, Ultimate Security sent letters to the car alarm industry and others saying that the Mongoose car alarm MX750S did not meet the Australian and New Zealand standard.

Mongoose said the claim was false and misleading and that it amounted to a breach of the Fair Trading Act. It also said that Ultimate and Mr Richards were trying to obtain a commercial advantage. The claim resulted in a loss for Mongoose of about $44,500.

Judge Mathers said that former criminal Desmond Dudson had testified for Ultimate Security that the Mongoose alarm was capable of easy evaluation by a professional thief and gave inadequate protection.

"I received an interesting instruction as to how to steal a motor vehicle," Judge Mathers said in her decision.

She found that the Mongoose alarm was certified in Australia as meeting the appropriate standard but Ultimate Security had concluded that the alarm for sale in New Zealand did not meet the specifications of the standard.

Judge Mathers also found that Mr Richards was not motivated by malice and did not act with reckless disregard.

"I would like to make it clear that I have no criticism of the particular Mongoose alarm as such. It is a well-known product which has been on the market for many years.

"This case is not about the effectiveness of the product as a whole but about whether certain representations relating to the certification specifications were misleading or injurious."