Search Results

1. UD v CE [2023] NZDT 73 (4 April 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...requirements of an exception to the driving rules for reversing? b. If not, is the amount claimed reasonable? Were the circumstances of the collision such that CE meets requirements of an exception to the driving rules for reversing? 4. The law of negligence requires us to have a duty of care to not cause damage to others’ property and if we do, we are liable to put the person’s damaged property back to the state it was in before the damage was caused. The Land Transport (Ro...

2. TN v HD [2023] NZDT 468 (16 August 2023) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...of the pegs, Mr E used this incorrectly located part of the fence as a boundary marker when he carried out the work on (what he thought was) his own property. 21. HD denied removing any survey pegs. 22. My findings are: a. In the law of negligence, every person is responsible for his or her own actions. b. A person can only be liable for another person’s negligence in certain limited circumstances. c. It was Mr E’s responsibility to ascertain the legal boundaries befo...

3. All charges and convicted charges December 2019 [xlsx, 857 KB]

   ...offences 982 821 956 972 1,270 1,289 1,491 1,774 1,977 2,202 2,272 2,936 3,858 4,887 5,195 4,995 5,260 4,828 4,680 4,006 3,839 4,068 4,395 4,819 4,344 4,508 4,918 4,473 4,655 4,826 5,372 5,021 5,524 5,883 5,244 5,707 5,500 5,484 5,511 5,066 04: Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons 15,069 18,581 20,159 20,956 22,302 22,367 24,148 25,476 24,507 24,427 22,449 22,867 21,474 19,240 19,438 22,067 20,717 18,446 19,659 18,585 17,221 16,723 17,715 17,957 18,855 19,225 20,276 21,760 21,576 20...

4. JY v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 64 (17 July 2023) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...APPLICANT JY RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. Both parties appeared at the hearing. Background [2] The applicant took his vehicle to the respondent for a warrant of fitness (WOF) inspection on 23 November 2022. The applicant paid the respondent $40 for this service. The vehicle failed the inspection. The respondent identified two faults: water and oil on the power s...

5. XT v TT & C Ltd [2024] NZDT 622 (24 July 2024) [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...and shareholder of the company. Although Mr TT was working for his company at the time, and the company is liable for the damage he caused, the claim is against Mr TT personally. 24. It is well established that directors and employees who act negligently can be liable for the consequences of their actions alongside the company they work for. In the case of BC 202254 v Taylor [2008] NZCA 317, the Court of Appeal held that the limited liability of a company limits the financial ri...

6. SG v QN [2022] NZDT 253 (16 December 2023) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...off. 2. The issues to be determined are: a) Was the crash caused by a medical event? Was QN careless in any way? b) What sum, if any, is QN liable to pay? Was the crash caused by a medical event? Was QN careless in any way? 3. The tort of negligence applies when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Drivers have a duty of care towards people who own vehicles or other property in the vicinity, to avoid causing damage to their property. 4. Ge...

7. TH v BC [2024] NZDT 141 (16 April 2024) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...(e) If not, did TH contribute to the collision? (f) If not, is BC responsible for the collision? (g) If so, was there damage caused to TH’s car? (h) If so, what is the remedy? What is the legal framework? 3. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that one person owes another to take care. The standard of care required is that of a reasonable prudent driver. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle....

8. TB v TN & LN [2024] NZDT 50 (14 February 2024) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...than 28 March 2024. Reasons: 1) On 10 March 2023, a collision occurred resulting in damage to the applicant’s car. This was in the applicant’s driveway. The applicant says the second respondent, LN was responsible, and was driving TB’s vehicle which collided with a pole. TN is LN’s mother. 2) The relevant law is the law of negligence. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal are: a) Was LN responsible for the damage to the applicant’s car set out in the claim? b) If...

9. ADD v ZWX [2013] NZDT 190 (15 May 2013) [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...likely that ADD admitted liability and more likely he told ZWX that he would contact his insurance company about the collision. Did ZWX fail to give way when turning right? [6] A motorist who collides with another may be found careless or negligent for breaching his or her duty to drive carefully. When determining whether ZWX failed to give way when turning right, I must consider the relevant road rules. When turning right from an intersection controlled by a give way si...

10. LCRO 21-2017 AJ v AK [pdf, 298 KB]

    ...accordance with his client’s instructions. [30] In describing Mr AJ’s conduct, the Committee said:10 Mr AJ’s effective refusal to file an application with the Court, in accordance with his client’s unequivocal instructions, … constituted gross negligence and/or incompetence which fell within the definition of unsatisfactory conduct as set out in sections 12(a) and 12(b) of the Act. It was [the Committee’s view] that Mr AJ’s actions constituted conduct which fell short of...