A spokesperson for Michael Hill Jeweller told the Herald, “We would like to offer our apologies, in this instance we didn’t get it right,” and said the company has improved its processes.
An Auckland working mother told the Herald she wasn’t doing anything out of the ordinary when a diamond suddenly fell out of her wedding ring in January. Stock photo / 123RF
The dispute began when a diamond fell out of the gold and diamond wedding ring that Emme, now in her 30s, had been wearing since her wedding 12 years earlier.
“I thought ‘Oh I’ve got a dud ring and these things happen. I’m sure it will be fine, I’ve paid for this lifetime care plan’ so I went into the store – but they just mucked around.”
Emme claims staff told her the ring was unrepairable because the metal was faulty.
The business gave her two options, she said: a refund or a store credit, both of which would allow her to buy only a less expensive ring.
Crucially she would have had to surrender her wedding ring – something she didn’t want to do.
“It was my wedding ring – it was special to me. Of course I wanted to keep the ring I exchanged with my husband on my wedding day.
“In their advertising they said it was to be treasured for life. You can’t sell something using that emotional connection – then later act like it means nothing.”
Emme posted in a mums’ group on Facebook, asking if anyone else had had problems getting Michael Hill Jeweller to fulfil its warranty obligations, and there was an outpouring. “Thirty, forty people were saying things like ‘this happened to me’ and ‘it was so stressful’.”
Michael Hill Jeweller submitted divorce stats to the Disputes Tribunal in its feud with an Auckland woman over a faulty gold and diamond wedding ring.
Emme contacted the Commerce Commission and Consumer Protection for advice, and talked to independent jewellers.
“I went back to Michael Hill and no matter what I asked for they were adamant I was not entitled to it, they had given me my options and I could take it or leave it, so I filed in court and they came straight back to me,” she claimed.
“They said I could keep the ring and also [get] a full refund, as well as the tribunal filing fee if I would withdraw my claim but I didn’t want to sign a non-disclosure agreement so I proceeded with the claim.”
A spokesperson for Michael Hill Jeweller told the Herald the company is sorry for not getting its customer service right in this instance. Photo / 123RF
The Disputes Tribunal is a quick and inexpensive way to settle disputes in New Zealand involving $30,000 or less. Its hearings are less formal than court hearings.
On a busy day, the Tribunal hears as many as 150 civil claims across 50 District Courts the length of the country. According to its annual report, in 2024 the tribunal resolved 13,550 claims valued at $116 million.
Emme said the dispute reached its nadir when she submitted evidence of Michael Hill Jeweller’s advertising to the Tribunal.
“The advertising said their wedding rings were to be cherished for a lifetime.” Emme had always intended to one day pass the ring to her children.
In response, Michael Hill Jeweller sent divorce statistics. “They submitted that the average length of a marriage in New Zealand is 14 years and considering the two-year separation period required by law, a wedding ring is worn for 12 years on average. So I guess I had enjoyed enough time with my wedding ring?”
Emme had also purchased a lifetime care plan when she and her then-fiance had originally bought the ring.
The Herald has seen documents in which Michael Hill Jeweller claimed “lifetime” can apply to the product’s lifetime, rather than the purchaser’s lifetime.
“As the item is now unrepairable, the lifetime of the product has come to an end and accordingly the care plan has also come to an end.” it said.
In October Emme won at the Tribunal. “I’ve received the money. Signed, sealed, delivered,” she said.
“They could have paid me outright at the start, a tiny amount, yet they wasted all this time and resource on fighting this ridiculous fight.”
The Tribunal found that the ring was not of an acceptable quality under the Consumer Guarantees Act because a reasonable person would expect a wedding ring to remain durable for at least 20 years.
It found “more likely than not, the main reason for the damage is a lack of durability that stems from the manufacturing process.”
Michael Hill Jeweller said in a statement to the Herald, “We would like to offer our apologies, in this instance we didn’t get it right. Our processes were not up to the standard our customers should expect and we understand the frustration this has caused.
“We are a premium brand, and we take our commitment to quality and customer care extremely seriously. As a result, we have reviewed and strengthened our internal processes to ensure we deliver the level of service our customers deserve every time.
“Customers should feel welcome to have their issues resolved appropriately, and we look forward to supporting this with our improved processes moving forward.”
Emme said she has nothing new to say to the company, but wants to share her advice to others in similar disputes.
“Don’t give up”, she said. “Document everything, and seek professional help and independent advice so you can know your rights.”
She is having the original ring repaired and restored by an independent jeweller.
“Remade. Same design, same diamonds, what metal we can use. It’s going to be made exactly as close as possible to what it should have been all those years ago.”
Emme’s final words are for her husband. “He’s amazing, he’s incredibly supportive. Everyone thought I was crazy – it was an against-the-odds battle and I was fortunate to have him and the family behind me. They were going to back me whatever I chose.”
*Not her real name.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.