Search Results

1. All finalised charges and convicted charges June 2023 [xlsx, 275 KB]

   ...offences 966 856 937 1,100 1,305 1,455 1,536 1,815 2,109 2,113 2,671 3,336 4,460 5,107 5,065 5,014 4,972 4,815 4,344 3,937 4,195 4,175 4,272 4,763 4,520 4,691 4,679 4,588 4,607 5,324 5,076 5,070 5,826 5,252 5,653 6,016 4,929 5,789 5,132 4,827 5,910 5,708 6,802 04: Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons 16,817 19,785 20,138 21,647 22,335 23,163 25,233 24,852 24,339 23,920 22,315 22,499 20,183 19,123 20,932 21,659 19,751 18,682 19,559 17,501 17,015 17,015 17,699 18,486 19,034 19,673 21,...

2. All finalised charges and convicted charges jun2024 [xlsx, 276 KB]

   ...offences 966 856 937 1,100 1,305 1,455 1,536 1,815 2,109 2,113 2,671 3,335 4,460 5,107 5,065 5,014 4,972 4,815 4,344 3,937 4,195 4,175 4,272 4,763 4,520 4,691 4,679 4,588 4,607 5,324 5,076 5,070 5,826 5,252 5,653 6,016 4,929 5,770 5,140 4,846 5,896 5,708 6,814 7,386 04: Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons 16,817 19,785 20,138 21,647 22,335 23,163 25,233 24,852 24,339 23,920 22,315 22,499 20,183 19,123 20,932 21,659 19,751 18,682 19,559 17,501 17,015 17,015 17,699 18,486 19,034 19,6...

3. AGB and AGC v ZVU [2013] NZDT 398 (1 May 2013) [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...prudent precautions would not have prevented the plywood from being blown from the trailer? Decision Did ZVU take all reasonable and prudent precautions to ensure that his trailer load was secure? [4] The relevant law is the law of negligence. When operating a vehicle on the road, drivers must act in accordance with a standard of care. Whether the standard has been breached is decided by asking whether in all the circumstances of the case, what should the reasonable...

4. IB v IY [2016] NZDT 1407 (25 Feburary 2016) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...for the estimated cost of repairs to her car. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Who was responsible for the collision? b) What sum, if any, is IY liable to pay? Who was responsible for the collision? 4. The relevant law is the tort of negligence, which applies 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 Transport Act 1988 and the...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. 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...