Search Results

1. 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....

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. 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...

5. [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:...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. 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...