A top Olympic equestrian and the woman who commissioned him to work on a horse training arena are at loggerheads over an almost $14,000 debt she refuses to pay, despite a court order. 

The 1984 and 1988 Olympian, John Cottle, who is among the country’s most highly regarded riders and trainers, says he has all but written off the money owed by former client Raine Selles, who complained about problems with a training arena he resurfaced. 

Cottle, who quit his showjumping career in 2006 and was inducted into the Equestrian Sports NZ Hall of Fame last year, says he’s dismayed there are so few avenues for getting the money owed, other than further expensive legal action for enforcement. 

Selles, who co-runs a business resolving disputes in the construction sector, was equally frustrated. 

She said she was familiar with construction and the law around it, and alleged there were “many errors” in how Cottle carried out the task. 

Selles confirmed to NZME that she would not be paying Cottle what was owed, despite an order from the district court. 

“I’m not paying him an absolute penny - or a dollar in this case, because as far as I’m concerned, he owes me the losses,” she claimed. 

Auckland dispute resolution specialist and mediator Raine Selles, who is refusing to budge over a debt owed. Photo / Supplied 

Selles, who now lives in Christchurch, commissioned Cottle in 2020 to source materials used to resurface the arena at the Auckland property she owned at the time. 

In a statement to NZME, she claims to have been forced to sell the property due to what happened. 

According to the legal decisions, the contract specified that the customer (Selles) was to prepare the laser-levelled compacted base, but when the contractor hired to do that then left, Selles asked Cottle to work on the base. 

Cottle said that when Selles didn’t want to spend money on a full rebuild, which had been advised, he opted to carry out an agreed schedule of less intensive preparatory work, including the removal of surrounding lime rock, replace the membrane on drain lines with better-quality material, and work to enhance drainage. 

Selles later claimed Cottle performed works that levelled the base of the arena, but she produced no evidence to support that claim and neither did invoices provided by Cottle show any such work. 

When Selles refused to pay two invoices totalling $13,852, Cottle lodged a claim with the Disputes Tribunal. 

Selles then lodged a counterclaim for $100,000 (plus GST). She alleged Cottle had made mistakes with the arena’s design and asserted she was claiming her losses as a result of that. Selles then reduced her counterclaim to $30,000 to bring it within the tribunal’s monetary limit. 

The tribunal concluded that the work done by Cottle was carried out according to the contract. It found that even though the arena was not able to be ridden on, that was not the fault of Cottle’s company. 

It also said Selles’ claim for money paid to others involved in the job, and the refund of the money already paid to Cottle, effectively amounted to “double dipping” - in other words, “the work would have been done for nothing”. 

The tribunal ordered Selles to pay Cottle the balance of two invoices for the supply of sand (for use in the arena surface mix) plus machinery hire and use. 

The tribunal said that as a result, Selles’ counterclaim failed. 

John Cottle said he had all but written off the debt but felt let down by the lack of enforcement options. Photo / Supplied 

Selles appealed the decision to the Auckland District Court, on grounds that included the tribunal referee’s “lack of understanding and failure to grasp the issues”, and a breach of natural justice. 

Selles contended that the way the referee conducted the hearing was unfair and “prejudicially affected the result”. 

The court dismissed the appeal last October and said the tribunal’s order was then enforceable. 

Judge Allison Sinclair said in her reserved decision that she did not consider the referee’s conduct was procedurally unfair in any of the ways alleged. 

Judge Sinclair said it would be contrary to law if parties unhappy with a tribunal decision were “simply able to appeal because they did not like the outcome”. 

Selles, who was originally from the UK, told NZME she was unfamiliar with the New Zealand court and legal system. 

“It’s just the way that the court systems work here, we have no specialisation, we have lay people and we see some of the most ridiculous judgments coming out of the High Court, let alone a district court, or you know, a Disputes Tribunal.” 

Cottle said he had all but written off the debt but felt let down by the lack of options for enforcement. 

He said the Disputes Tribunal was good for many cases but even with a ruling in favour, sometimes a claim might be a lot of wasted time because nothing happened. 

“She [Selles] owes me 15 grand which is not an insignificant amount, but I’ve sort of walked away. 

“I’m just angry that she gets away with this and there’s no real help out there. 

“There’s no protection for people like me and everyone else. You walk away from the court and then you’re in the jungle.” 

The Ministry of Justice’s Tracey Baguley told NZME in an earlier story that the Disputes Tribunal didn’t have the power to enforce costs it awarded to complainants. 

”This is because a monetary order made in the Disputes Tribunal is a civil debt, and there are no provisions in legislation empowering the court or tribunal to proactively enforce civil debt on a creditor’s [the person who the order is in favour of] behalf.” 

Baguley said a complainant could pursue collection of their debt through the district court, which did have the power to enforce orders made by the courts, tribunals and other authorities. 

Cottle’s advice to others in the contracting game was to “get paid up front” or not do the work. 

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.