A Kiwi couple has successfully sued a restaurant after finding their bottomless brunch had a limit.
But despite pursuing a hefty compensation, the pair walked away with just $5 between them after successfully taking the restaurant to the Disputes Tribunal.
Expecting to fill their bellies with an all-you-can-drink-and-eat experience, the pair were disappointed to find the "bottomless" part of the brunch only extended to the drinks.
Unsatisfied with the "very small" food portions, the pair were told if they wanted more food it would be an additional charge. The pair ended up going to another restaurant to eat afterwards as they were still hungry.
At the time, the terms and conditions did not set out whether the bottomless brunch was limited to drinks.
The pair claimed the restaurant breached the Fair Trading Act 1986 and also the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 because the food portions were too small and the standard drinks did not contain enough alcohol. The pair's names and the restaurant involved were redacted from the Disputes Tribunal decision.
They each drank at least five alcoholic drinks and did not get "high", where usually they'd feel that way after two drinks at the same restaurant, the couple said.
Karen O'Shea, the tribunal referee, dismissed their claim the restaurant broke the Consumers' Act but found it had broken the Fair Trading Act because its advertising was misleading.
"Had [the complainants] known the 'bottomless brunch' only applied to drinks they could have made an informed decision about where they wanted to have brunch. They did not have that opportunity," O'Shea said.
The restaurant has since amended its advertising to make it clear that bottomless only refers to drinks. The pair were seeking $1999 toward an apology, their costs and time involved in preparing for the hearing, the Disputes Tribunal filing fee and their costs associated with eating food and drink in another restaurant.
However, the tribunal ordered the restaurant to pay the pair $25 each, a total of $50. But, after the $45 filing fee, the pair walked away with a measly $5 between them.
