In a recently released ruling, which redacted the names of all parties, the woman claimed the horse’s nature was misrepresented and she would never have purchased it if she’d known its history of behavioural issues.
The woman considered herself a beginner rider despite competing in dressage events and having ridden many other horses.
She did a few trial rides with the horse which went well then bought it through an agency as an intermediary. The ruling does not state how much she paid.
But the woman wasn’t provided with a contract or a written agreement.
The woman told the tribunal she also wasn’t given any information about the horse’s history, including its behavioural issues with the original owner. She claims she made it clear to the seller that she needed a quiet horse with no behavioural issues.
In a written statement to the tribunal, the original owner said the horse had bucked her off “for no reason” and described it as a “ticking time bomb” and having “lost all sense of sanity”. But she also said at other times the horse was “super” and would have been suitable for a beginner rider.
The seller, who the agency represented, told the tribunal she’d had no issues with the horse and it had never bucked her off nor shown any dangerous behaviour.
She provided letters from a vet who had treated the horse over the years and a horse trainer who both said it was not dangerous.
The seller said she wouldn’t have sold the horse to the woman if she didn’t think she was experienced and was shocked when six months later she came back asking for a refund.
At the Disputes Tribunal hearing held earlier this year, the seller provided text messages and photos from the woman that stated how happy she was with her “big best friend”.
Tribunal referee Cynthia Hawes accepted that the woman had proved the horse did buck her on at least one occasion, but that it had happened five weeks after the purchase and she continued riding it for another five months.
Hawes said the only evidence of the horse’s behavioural issues had come from the original owner.
“I do not think that one occasion of bucking amounts, when the other evidence is considered, to evidence of a vicious propensity,” Hawes said in the ruling.
In her view, the horse’s nature hadn’t been misrepresented and the seller hadn’t tried to conceal any information from the woman.
“Horses are living creatures, and their behaviour cannot always be predicted in a reliable way,” Hawes said.
She said the buyer initially appeared happy with her purchase and didn’t raise any issues with the seller for six months.
“I do not think that one unexplained bucking episode can be regarded as establishing that a horse is inherently unpredictable or vicious, or is unsuitable for a reasonably competent rider,” Hawes said.
She said it was possible it changed after it was sold but couldn’t speculate as to why.
Hawes dismissed the woman’s claim for a refund.
Jeremy Wilkinson is an Open Justice reporter based in Manawatū covering courts and justice issues with an interest in tribunals. He has been a journalist for nearly a decade and has worked for NZME since 2022.
