Search Results

1. KG v SQ & vehicle testing company [2022] NZDT 125 (4 August 2022) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...subsequently denied any liability for the damage and recommended to KG that he contact his insurer. The [third party] would not release the motorcycle without payment from the insurer. Law 10. In relation to SQ, the relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a way that causes damage to other vehicles or property. 11. In relation to [vehicle testing company], the law of bailment applies. A bailee must take reasonable care of goods in their pos...

2. JN & TN v CI [2023] NZDT 492 (5 October 2023) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...from W Ltd attended the hearing by teleconference, as did CI and his mother, ML, as his support person. 2. On 11 June 2022 JN and CI were involved in a collision at [Road 1], [City]. 3. JN and TN claim $20,726.62 for the cost of repairing their [vehicle]. 4. CI disputed who was at fault for the collision. Did CI cause the collision and damage to the [vehicle]? 5. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a way that causes damage to other...

3. EC v UI [2023] NZDT 615 (23 November 2023) [pdf, 203 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 615 APPLICANT EC RESPONDENT UI APPLICANT'S INSURER X Insurance The Tribunal orders: UI is to pay $8,588.44 to X Insurance on or before 5.00pm on 11 December 2023. Reasons 1. EC was driving north on [Street] which has two lanes in each direction separated by a median. Soon after he passed the entrance to [Landmark]

4. UC v Council [2023] NZDT 67 (27 March 2023) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...traffic. It was therefore not the layout of the road or vegetation that was planted on the side that caused or even contributed to the collision, but rather due to how the driver operated their motor vehicle. 9. In this case, there has been an act of negligence, but it was not due to any breach of a duty of care by the Council. Rather, it was through the careless driving of the person operating the motor vehicle on that night. The Council are not liable for a driver who drives out of...

5. HM & KM v DS [2024] NZDT 799 (9 October 2024) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...hearing, I am bound by those findings including that referred to in her lawyer’s email, that KM’s statement of having travelled along [Street 1] from [Street 3], was accepted by the District Court. 5. I must therefore find that DS is liable in negligence for this collision and that no contributory negligence on the part of KM has been established. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 6. With respect to costs, although KM’s vehicle was actually written off because of th...

6. ET & JT v AQ [2024] NZDT 295 (13 May 2024) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...on both cars points to AQ’s comment that [car 1] braked suddenly. This is set out in detail in his report to J Ltd (pages 35 to 38 of J Ltd’s bundle). MQ says he has 30 plus years in panel industry including damage analysis. Is AQ liable in negligence for the damage to JT’s car? 7. All drivers owe a duty of car to other road users to drive in a manner which does not cause injury to people or property. Any failure to do so breaches that duty and the driver liable for the cost...

7. IN & Ors v GU & J Ltd [2024] NZDT 719 (26 August 2024) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...lights. IN and her insurer say that GU caused the collision and seek an order that GU and/or his mechanic, J Ltd, pay them $7,161.58, which they say was the cost of the repairs to IN’s car. 2. The issues to be resolved are: a. Did GU, by his negligence, cause the collision? b. Did J Ltd, by its negligence, cause or contribute to the cause of the collision? c. Are the costs claimed proved? 3. I called GU three times for the hearing, but all my calls went to voicemail. The claim...

8. D Ltd v AB [2023] NZDT 473 (15 September 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...damage to the [vehicle 1], including uninsured losses of $2,640.99. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Who was responsible for the collision? b) What sum, if any, is AB liable to pay? Who was responsible for the collision? 4. The tort of negligence requires payment of compensation when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Drivers have a duty of care towards other drivers, which includes compliance with the provisions of the Land Transpor...

9. E12 John Mckensey - Lighting - EIC - Applicant [pdf, 4.6 MB]

   ...Syndicate bases, will result in the need for additional fixed lighting – referenced as Business as Usual (BAU) Lighting. This is proposed to be similar in nature to the existing lighting, well controlled and in my opinion will therefore result in negligible effects. Construction Lighting 3.2 The proposed Construction Lighting will be well controlled using the equipment and disposition expressed in the CLMP. I have been involved in the preparation of the 0762 4 CLMP. While...

10. ST & CT v OU [2021] NZDT 1606 (21 June 2021) [pdf, 201 KB]

    ...framing the claim in contract. The obligation to pay road user charges and road taxes does not arise from a voluntary exchange of promises (as in a contract). The obligation is statutory and mandatory. 10. In my view the claim is more cogent as a negligence claim. The Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims founded in tort that relate to physical damage to property. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 11. OU was not represented at the hearing, but it would be rela...