By Jeremy Wilkinson of
Photo: RNZ
Coke No Sugar, or Coke Zero? A bartender told a customer they were virtually the same thing.
However, the distinction apparently mattered so much to Taiming Zhang that he attempted to take James Cook Hotel to the highest human rights jurisdiction in the country for ruining his New Year's Eve.
Zhang is no stranger to the tribunal after taking Victoria University there recently to try to claim $35,000 after he was moved into a different hall of residence and had to walk uphill.
Another bid before the tribunal saw him attempt to take Wellington restaurant Red Hill to task after he learned he would have to pay for two if he wanted to eat a shared meal called a hotpot by himself.
The tribunal noted that Zhang's claim against the restaurant lacked seriousness and was an abuse of the tribunal's processes.
Typically, the tribunal deals with complex cases of alleged breaches of privacy and human rights abuses and has the power to award up to $250,000 in compensation.
The Office of Human Rights Proceedings can provide free legal representation to people wanting to make a claim to the tribunal, but generally only takes on higher-profile cases.
Its director, Michael Timmins, said it was disappointing to see that an individual like Zhang was bringing a claim that was clearly not a human rights issue to an incredibly busy decision-making body.
"The Human Rights Review Tribunal is already overloaded, it doesn't need additional claims like this … and, while people have the right to pursue a breach if they feel aggrieved, they should reflect whether it is a significant human rights issue or not," he said.
"This would have taken quite a lot of work from the tribunal and they need to focus on genuine cases."
The tribunal, on average, takes two years to bring a case to completion from the claim being lodged, to scheduling a hearing and then finally making a ruling.
No Sugar v Coke Zero
In 2020 Zhang decided to dine at the James Cook Hotel in Wellington where he ordered a Jack Daniels with Coke No Sugar, prompting the bartender to explain that they only had Coke Zero, which was essentially the same thing.
Zhang disputed the comparability of the two Coca-Cola products and challenged the legality of the hotel advertising that it had the product he wanted, when in fact it didn't.
Coke No Sugar launched in 2017 with the intention of superseding Coke Zero which was launched in 2006 and rebranded to Coke Zero Sugar in 2022.
He then made a written complaint where he threatened to report the hotel to the Commerce Commission.
James Cook refunded him the cost of his drink but also banned him from its premises because of his rude and demanding behaviour on New Year's Eve, and because of his practice of lying on couches during his various visits to the restaurant that made other guests uncomfortable.
Zhang then took the matter to the Human Rights Commission which declined to progress his complaint, before lodging a claim to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
In essence, his claim was that he was banned because he made a consumer complaint about false advertising that amounted to a "political opinion" which is protected under the Human Rights Act, and that his ban was a form of personal vengeance against him.
"Zhang's position is not easy to follow," the tribunal found in a decision released on Friday striking out his claim.
"But in essence, he appears to argue that laws are inherently political because they reflect policies developed by the government and are passed by Parliament. Therefore, any opinion of a law is a political opinion.
"We disagree with that proposition."
The tribunal found Zhang was not expressing a political opinion and as such the very basis on which his claim relied could not succeed.
The tribunal also noted that if Zhang had been living in New Zealand it would have made him pay the hotel's legal costs for defending the case.
* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.
