Kmart ordered to pay Christchurch family more than $15,000 after asbestos found in play sand

A Christchurch family has won more than $15,000 from Kmart NZ after the Disputes Tribunal found recalled children’s play sand purchased for their twins was unsafe and contained tremolite asbestos.

The decision follows a nine-month dispute involving Elle Chrisp and David Dingwall, who sought reimbursement for costs they incurred after the contaminated sand was identified in their home.

The Tribunal ordered Kmart NZ Holdings Ltd to reimburse the couple just over $15,000 for expenses including asbestos testing, urgent relocation, replacement of household items, property remediation and loss of amenity.

Consumer NZ, which publicised the ruling on 18 August, says it understands this is the first Disputes Tribunal decision in New Zealand concerning the recalled children’s sand products.

Tribunal finds product was unsafe

The Tribunal found that the play sand bought by the family was unsafe, not fit for purpose and not of acceptable quality under the Consumer Guarantees Act.

Referee Cynthia Hawes said the sand should not have been offered for sale to consumers. In the decision, she said a reasonable parent who knew moulding sand contained asbestos would not buy it for a child to play with, regardless of the quantity present.

Kmart had argued that the sand represented a low risk, according to Consumer NZ. However, the consumer organisation says that assessment relied on a supplier-commissioned report relating to a different product, with the same information later appearing in a recall notice published by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.

Kmart also challenged some of the steps taken by the family as unnecessary or excessive. The Tribunal rejected those arguments and found the family’s response to the contamination was reasonable and justified.

Nine-month fight for reimbursement

Consumer NZ head of research and advocacy Gemma Rasmussen said the case demonstrated how difficult it can be for consumers to obtain redress following a product safety failure.

Chrisp and Dingwall spent nine months gathering evidence, arranging their own testing and meeting costs while pursuing the matter. Testing they commissioned confirmed asbestos in the sand.

The couple said they had tried to engage constructively with Kmart but did not want to resolve the matter through a confidential settlement because they believed the safety issue was a matter of wider public interest.

Chrisp said the family wanted the outcome formally recorded, particularly after feeling that their concerns had previously been treated as an overreaction.

She said the ruling could provide reassurance to other families who were told recalled play sand presented only a low risk and encourage them to continue seeking acknowledgment or compensation where they had incurred costs.

What the decision means for other families

Disputes Tribunal decisions do not create binding legal precedent for future cases. However, Consumer NZ says the outcome may still be significant for other consumers who purchased recalled sand-based products and incurred costs because of safety concerns.

Thousands of New Zealand households purchased products affected by the recall, according to Consumer NZ. Some consumers may have received only a refund for the original product.

The organisation says the Christchurch decision indicates consumers may be able to recover additional reasonable costs under the Consumer Guarantees Act where a recalled product is found to be unsafe.

The case also raises wider questions about how quickly product safety concerns are assessed, how risk information is communicated to consumers and how families are supported when they face costs arising from a recalled product.

Consumer NZ calls attention to product safety gaps

Consumer NZ says the decision exposes serious gaps in New Zealand’s product safety system and demonstrates the burden that can fall on individual consumers when they challenge a large retailer over a safety issue.

The organisation said the family had to commission testing themselves, assemble evidence and take the case to the Disputes Tribunal before receiving reimbursement.

The ruling does not automatically determine the outcome of claims by other consumers, and individual circumstances may differ. Consumers considering a claim would need to assess their own losses and supporting evidence.

Source: Consumer NZ media release, 18 August 2026.