Search Results

1. OE v PN [2024] NZDT 179 (22 March 2024) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...come into contact. OE claims $2,119.99 for the damages caused to his car. 2. The issues to be resolved are: a. Did PN cause damage to OE’s car? b. If so, is OE entitled to claim $ 2,119.99? Did PN cause damage to OE’s car? 3. The law of negligence requires every driver to take care to drive in a manner that does not cause damage to other road user’s vehicles or property. Where both parties fall below that standard then both parties can be found to have contributed to the negl...

2. NO v WN & NT [2024] NZDT 802 (16 October 2024) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...While I do not necessarily consider the document to be a binding agreement, I do consider NT’s actions, in allowing a suspended driver to drive her vehicle, to be a breach of her duty of care to other road users and find her to be also liable in negligence for the collision. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 7. For all the above reasons, I find both respondents to be jointly and severally liable to pay $1999.00 to NO. If the amount is not paid by the due date above, NO...

3. W Ltd v NC [2022] NZDT 210 (24 November 2022) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...and NC were involved in a collision at [Address]. 2. J Ltd claims $18,203.62 for the cost of towing and repairing the vehicle W Ltd was driving. 3. All parties attended the hearing. Who caused the collision? 4. 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. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (“LTR”) explains the rules that apply to all drivers. 5. NC was towing a large, covered...

4. 2019 NZPSPLA 004185/2017 J Anstis [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...However, they were ultimately retrieved. Do any of the above amount to misconduct? [22] Section 74(4) of the Act provides that it is a ground for a complaint if a certificate holder, such as Mr Anstis, has been guilty of misconduct or gross negligence in the course of his work as a security employee. [23] Misconduct is defined in s 4 of the Act as: Conduct by a licensee or certificate holder that a reasonable person would consider to be disgraceful or conduct that cont...

5. ST v SC [2023] NZDT 86 (7 March 2023) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...repairs to ST’s vehicle $ 5,048.50 b. Reimbursement of Tribunal filing fee $ 180.00 c. Rounding $ 1.50 $ 5,230.00 3. The issues to be resolved are: a. Does clause 1 in the [Race] entry form preclude ST from pursuing a negligence claim against SC? b. If not, did SC fail in his duty to take reasonable care while racing? c. Is ST entitled to $5,230.00? Does clause 1 in the [Race] entry form preclude ST from pursuing a negligence claim against SC?...

6. NL v EU & TJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1589 (2 August 2021) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...attended the hearing. NL only has third-party insurance. He has notified his insurer about the claim against him, and the insurer has not asked to be a party to the proceedings. Which party caused the collision? 5. 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. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (“LTR”) explains the rules that apply to all drivers. 6. Rules 2.6 and 4.4(2) of t...

7. IW v CZ [2024] NZDT 498 (29 May 2024) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...before entering CZ’s lane. It was IW’s actions that caused CZ to lose control of her vehicle, even though his vehicle did not directly impact hers during the lane change, and that led to the resulting collision. CZ is therefore not liable in negligence for IW/KJ Ltd’s claimed losses and the claim is dismissed. Referee Perfect Date: 29 May 2024 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that som...

8. KD v N Ltd & HX [2023] NZDT 424 (3 July 2023) [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...had moved from its premises in [Address 2] to [Address 1] in late 2021. KD says the area N Ltd is located is a high risk area for flooding because it is low lying. He says therefore N Ltd owed a duty of care to him. In other words, he says N Ltd were negligent in moving to [Address 1] and as a result of that negligence his bike got water damaged. 4. He says, in his correspondence to N Ltd, that he expected his bike to be covered under N Ltd’s insurance. In an email from N Ltd to KD i...

9. CH v SU [2024] NZDT 868 (5 December 2024) [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...16th April 2021 on [Road] and side swiped CH’s [vehicle 1] motor vehicle. 13) As to the legal landscape, the evidence before the Tribunal is sufficient to satisfy the burden of proof that SU failed to exercise her duty of care under the tort of negligence when her vehicle collided with [vehicle 1]. 14) As to the matters raised by SU in her defence, I have read her submissions to the Registrar of 24th June 2024 and importantly the email to the registrar with the eight points provi...

10. BC v ME & PI [2024] NZDT 186 (14 March 2024) [pdf, 211 KB]

    ...APPLICANT’S INSURER X Ltd The Tribunal orders: PI is to pay $7036.00 to X Ltd (being all insured losses) on or before 11 April 2024; and PI’s claim against ME is dismissed. Reasons 1. Three drivers were involved in two motor vehicle collisions outside [Location A] in March 2022. ME (driving a [Vehicle 1]) had turned right from a side driveway exiting [Location A]. There was a collision between her vehicle and PI’s vehicle (a [Vehicle 2]) which was travelling in th...