Search Results

1. [2022] NZREADT 23 - CAC 1904 v Bright (8 November 2022) [pdf, 278 KB]

   ...Bright has been charged by Complaints Assessment Committee 1904 (the Committee) with misconduct. The particulars of the charge are:1 1. On 3 July 2019, the complainant viewed the property (and one other property) with Mr Bright, travelling in his vehicle. 2. The complainant and Mr Bright were not acquainted prior to the viewing. 3. The complainant and Mr Bright were the only people present at the viewing. 4. During the viewing of the property, in the master bedroom, Mr Bright:...

2. KG v TM [2025] NZDT 2 (22 January 2025) [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...and whether the repair cost is reasonable. Did KM hit TM’s cow because TM did not give sufficient warning of having two untethered cows on the road, and/or did KM contribute to hitting the cow by a failure in his duty? 4. Under the law of negligence duties are owed to not cause damage to property belonging to another person. Any person moving untethered animals on a road has a duty to other road users. Rule 11.14 (5) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule states – A person mov...

3. TN v QS [2022] NZDT 92 (1 September 2022) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...was clear? b. If QS breached his duty of care, what loss can TN prove she has incurred that she is entitled to be compensated for? Did QS breach his duty of care by crossing a cycle lane without ensuring the way was clear? 3. The law of negligence imposes a duty on everyone to ensure that we do not cause harm to another person due to our acts and omissions. Road users therefore must operate their vehicle so they do not cause damage to others. A lane is defined in the Land Tr...

4. AAL and AAM v ZZQ in his capacity as Trustee of BG Trust [2012] NZDT 3 (7 August 2012) [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...vehicle driven by AAL (and owned by AAL and AAM) collided with a bull owned by BG Trust on [a state highway] near [a town]. AAL and AAM claimed $3,478.75 from BG Trust for the damage to their car. Issue [2] The issue is whether BG Trust was negligent in allowing the bull to stray onto [a state highway]. Law [3] The relevant law is s 5 of the Animals Law Reform Act 1989, and the law of negligence. In determining whether the Trust was negligent, the Tribunal must lo...

5. KI v ST [2024] NZDT 870 (17 December 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...purpose if it had not been damaged, and given the specific evidence about third party actions likely having damaged the gate, as well as the likely timing of that, I find that he has not proven on the balance of probabilities that ST is liable in negligence for the losses he has suffered as a result of the collision. Referee: J Perfect Date: 17 December 2024 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe t...

6. BD & NT v S Ltd & C Ltd [2024] NZDT 769 (4 October 2024) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...concrete work carried out with reasonable care and skill, done in accordance with contractual specifications and the building consent, and fit for the purpose? b) What sum, if any, is payable by the builder to the clients? c) Was the subcontractor negligent in carrying out the driveway and path work? What sum, if any, is payable by the subcontractor to the clients? d) Did the subcontractor breach its contract with the builder? What sum, if any, is payable by the subcontractor to the bu...

7. TI v HQ [2024] NZDT 897 (18 November 2024) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...awning was caused by HQ or by some well meaning bystander and if by HQ, what amount should be paid. Findings Liability 4. I find HQ liable for the damage to the awning. 5. The claim is brought under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in tort, (negligence), where damage to property is alleged. A tort occurs where a person causes harm to another person or their property through a breach of their duty of care to go about their activities in a manner that does not cause foreseeable h...

8. BI v NX [2024] NZDT 310 (22 May 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...4. The issues I have to consider are: a. Did NX cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? b. If so, what is the appropriate remedy? Did NX cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? 5. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. 6. I find that NX failed to take reasonable care. This was accepted by NX, who accepted responsibility for the collision as she had been dis...

9. [2011] NZEmpC 49 Katz v Mana Coach Services Ltd [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...the time was across the seas and in no way responsible criminally for the servant‟s conduct. [31] In the recent decision of Wormell v Hagen, 29 the British Columbia Supreme Court again discussed indemnification. In that case the defendant negligently operated his crane causing the plaintiff injury. The defendant sought indemnification from what he claimed was his employer. The Court found both that the defendant was not an employee and that an employer is not liable to indem...

10. EC v UU [2025] NZDT 43 (1 April 2025) [pdf, 178 KB]

    ...respondent may have looked to see if the way was clear, but the evidence shows that in this case she did not look well enough and failed to ensure the way was clear before entering the roundabout. Given the above, I find no evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the applicant. What are the reasonable costs of remedy? [9] The applicant claims the cost of repair $2,303.57 and has supplied evidence to the respondent and the Tribunal supporting this claim. The respondent ha...