File photo. Photo: 123rf.com
A couple have successfully sued a restaurant after the bottomless brunch they paid for turned out to have a bottom.
They paid $65 each but were told after their first round of food that if they wanted more it would incur an additional charge.
Not satisfied with that after forking out for what they thought was going to be a morning of eating and drinking to their hearts' content the pair took the restaurant to the Disputes Tribunal hoping to get nearly $2000 in compensation.
The tribunal released its decision today and awarded them each $25.
The couple's name and the restaurant involved were redacted from the decision but the basis for their claim was that the food portions were too small and the drinks did not contain enough alcohol.
The couple also said that the restaurant had breached the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act because of the portion sizes and that the terms and conditions for the "bottomless brunch" didn't specify that it was limited to drinks only.
Tribunal referee Karen O'Shea said in her decision that the couple gave evidence at the hearing earlier this year that they'd had at least five alcoholic drinks and did not get "high", where usually they'd feel that way after just a few drinks at the same restaurant.
O'Shea said the terms and conditions for the advertised bottomless brunch were "misleading" and could have referred to both food and drinks.
The restaurant has since amended its advertising to show only the drinks have no limit.
O'Shea dismissed the claims about the amount of alcohol that was in each drink as well as the food portions being too small on the basis that there was no evidence to support the couple's claim.
The couple told the tribunal they went to another venue to buy drinks and food after being disappointed by the service at the first restaurant. They attempted to claim the cost of this new purchase from the original restaurant, which the tribunal dismissed.
The tribunal cannot force a party to apologise - and the restaurant had already done so - nor can it make an order to make a party pay for the other's legal costs, like the couple were claiming.
"I accept that [the couple] did not receive the full bargain they thought they had purchased as they expected unlimited food," O'Shea said in her decision.
"However, they received the benefit of some food and unlimited drinks and are not entitled to a full refund of $65 each. They suffered the loss of being able to order additional food at no extra charge and should get a partial refund."
O'Shea ordered a partial refund of $25 for each of them because the restaurant breached the Fair Trading Act by not setting out the terms of the brunch more clearly.
* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.