Kiwi couple sue bottomless brunch after leaving hungry and not ‘high’ enough
What's Good
What's Good

Kiwi couple sue bottomless brunch after leaving hungry and not ‘high’ enough

And they won... Kinda!

Bottomless brunch, you know how it goes, right? It’s pretty self-explanatory. So, Imagine the shock when you and your mate decide to treat yourselves to an outing, only to find out it’s not so bottomless after all. 

That’s exactly what happened to one Kiwi couple who decided to sue an NZ restaurant after finding out their bottomless brunch had, well, a bottom!

After paying $65 each, the couple were told that any additional kai beyond their first lot would be an extra cost. 

Now, if you’ve been to a bottomless brunch before, you’ll know it usually goes something like this: Endless mimosas, prosecco or maybe a cock-tee (if you're lucky) and a good hearty meal to tie you over while you sip away at your drinks. 

The bottomLESS than satisfied duo believed they would be getting more bang for their buck with bottomless drinks AND food. So, they took the restaurant to the Disputes Tribunal aiming to receive $2000 in compensation for their dissatisfaction with a misleading advertisement.

Now, we can't give you the couple's names or spill the tea on the restaurant involved, but we can tell you why they took this culinary battle to court.

They claimed that the initial food portions were too small and the beverages didn’t contain the same amount of alcohol as a standard drink from the same restaurant.

The couple argued that this violated the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Guarantees Act. They even complained that the "bottomless brunch" terms and conditions didn't explicitly state that it was limited to their drinks only.

Tribunal Referee Karen O'Shea spoke to the NZ Herald to explain that the couple presented their case, revealing that they had at least five drinks. Apparently, they claimed they didn't get "high," which they normally would after just a few at the same place. 

O'Shea agreed that the advertised terms were misleading since they could have included both food and drinks, but there was no evidence to justify the pair’s small portion and low alcohol claims.

The Disputes Tribunal put this brunch-time mystery to rest. The decision? The couple gets a grand total of $50. Yep, $25 each.

The restaurant has since changed its advertising making it clear that the “bottomless” part of the brunch only relates to the bevvies. No more mixed messages!

So, If you're ever in the mood for a bottomless brunch, just make sure to read the fine print and keep your expectations in check.