The woman claimed the man had financial issues and that he asked her for money to help him with rent, food, medication and to buy a car.
She also claimed he agreed to repay the money after he had completed a fitness competition but the relationship deteriorated and he refused to repay any money, according to the tribunal.
His attempt at proving he owed her nothing included a recording he submitted to the tribunal, in which he asked the woman how much money she instead owed him.
The tribunal said large sums were mentioned in the context of lost bets, such as the woman “having to pay $1000 if she guessed whether a spoon was wood or plastic”.
“The conversation was clearly in jest and any references to money owed cannot be taken seriously,” the tribunal said.
The man said the money transferred to his account by the woman was either a gift, compensation for him providing a fitness plan to her, or his share of money in helping her when she worked in a food delivery service.
He also claimed the woman offered to pay $2000 for a fitness plan he provided, but the woman proved she paid him $1000 in April for the plan.
The tribunal said nothing was provided to prove the value of the fitness plan.
However, the man did accept he owed her some money for the car.
He claimed to have paid half the cost of the $5000 car but the woman provided evidence that she paid the vendor the full purchase price.
The woman provided evidence of various payments made to his account between February and June 2023 totalling $10,470.
Bank statements showed she had to take out a $10,000 loan to help buy a car and pay for the man’s medication.
The tribunal had to determine if the money was a loan or a gift.
Due to the woman’s financial situation and the nature of the expenses she was covering for the man in the short time they had been friends, the tribunal said it was unlikely the money was a gift, but rather a loan, and found the man liable to repay her $10,470.
However, the tribunal declined her additional claim of $16,985 spent on food, in particular takeaways, which had been shared between them, saying there was nothing to suggest the money spent was like a loan.
The ruling comes after another earlier this week in which a woman took her former boyfriend to the Disputes Tribunal for breach of contract, over her missing her flight to a concert after he failed to pick her up as planned. In that case the woman tried - and failed - to have him pay her the price of a new plane ticket.
* In published decisions by the Disputes Tribunal, all parties, including registered companies, are anonymised regardless of the outcome.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
