A couple had to cancel their wedding venue after the owner requested a second deposit when the first $23,685 was stolen within half an hour of them dropping it off.

The venue’s owner accused the couple of being behind the burglary, saying it was unusual to be paid in cash and it was taken so soon after they’d paid.

The couple were then told if they didn’t pay a second deposit of the same amount, they wouldn’t be able to have their wedding at the venue.

Now the Disputes Tribunal has ordered the venue owner to pay the couple back their deposit, saying it was in breach of the contract by requesting a second one when there was no evidence the couple had anything to do with the burglary.

According to that ruling, the couple paid their cash deposit in two payments last year, the second of which was $20,685.

The same day, a burglar, who has since been caught and is now awaiting sentencing, stole the money from the venue’s offices.

The venue claimed the couple had been involved with the theft in some way but tribunal referee Peter Moses said there was no evidence of that.

“The [couple] were accused of somehow having facilitated the burglary and informed by [the venue] that they would not get a refund of their deposit,” Moses said.

Moses said that the venue asking for a second deposit put the couple in a “difficult position” and they were effectively forced to cancel their wedding.

“I am satisfied on the evidence before me that [the venue] was in breach of its contract to host the wedding by insisting on a second full deposit being paid, there being no evidence whatsoever of [the couple] having anything to do with a burglary…” Moses said.

“I note that the company did not provide any written submissions or any documentary evidence providing a basis for its denial of the refund of their deposit sought by the applicants.”

The venue owner didn’t attend the tribunal hearing held earlier this year after seeking an adjournment, because he was overseas.

However, Moses declined that adjournment because notice of the hearing was sent in February and the owner’s flight wasn’t booked until March.

The hearing went ahead in his absence, and Moses ordered that the company pay back the deposit, plus $500 interest.

‘Extremely difficult’

The venue owner told NZME he was sceptical that the burglary was a random event.

“Within a very short time of the cash deposit being made, the theft occurred,” he claimed.

“Everything happened very, very quickly.”

He claimed the burglar arrived just after lunchtime and asked for the event manager by name, before taking the money.

“This really took us by surprise … the effect on us has been extremely difficult,” he said.

The owner said he raised his concerns that the couple were involved when they asked for their refund. He also raised it with the tribunal but acknowledged he didn’t have any evidence to support his claim.

The venue owner believes the burglar should be paying the couple back, not the venue.

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.