Search Results

1. LCRO 140/2021 TQ v RI (8 August 2022) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...provides the essence of Mr TQ’s allegations:5 RI, [Law Firm A] has not included all the previous invoices relating to this matter. The previous work, which was carried out, and the other invoices which have been charged and paid for, were due to the negligence and incompetence of RI, [Law Firm A]. I had made it quite clear to RI, [Law Firm A] from the initial outset, that the first and second plaintiffs should not have the right to sue me, as the first and second plaintiff was incorr...

2. JT & JB Ltd v SN [2021] NZDT 1582 (16 July 2021) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...stated that he was travelling in the right lane to make a right turn to Newtown. He said that SN was in the left lane and he changed lanes and hit the left front of the taxi. Findings about what happened 10. For a finding about negligence the Tribunal must first make a finding about the facts of the case. The standard of proof is the balance of probability. There must be more certainty than doubt about what happened. 11. The damage that resulted from the co...

3. BI v A Ltd [2024] NZDT 833 (19 September 2024) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...to suggest that there was a reason for BI stopping, other than randomly or abruptly and other than possibly being under the influence of drugs at the time. 7. For all the reasons above, I find, on the balance of probabilities that QA is liable in negligence for failing to stop in time behind BI’s vehicle at traffic lights. There is insufficient evidence that another vehicle hit QA’s vehicle first, pushing him into BI’s car. There is also no evidence of there having been pre-existi...

4. 2021 NZPSPLA 032.pdf [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...made under s 74 of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010 AGAINST B M HEARD by telephone and audio-visual links on 6 October 2021 DECISION [1] Mr and Mrs D say that B M was guilty of misconduct or gross negligence when he repossessed an excavator from their property on 19 March 2021. They accept that Mr M had the required paperwork to carry out the repossession but say in doing so Mr M breached health and safety requirements, was rude and a...

5. N Ltd v TC [2019] NZDT 1364 (25 September 2019) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) R Insurance Limited The Tribunal hereby orders: TC is to pay the sum of $9550.10 directly to R Insurance Limited on or before 16 October 2019. Reasons 1. Mr X, driving a N Ltd vehicle, and Ms C were the drivers involved in a vehicle collision on B Drive. Ms C was turning right out of the Pak’N’Save carpark and Mr X was driving in the right- hand lane of two along B Drive. 2. Another vehicle turned right acro...

6. BI v ID [2024] NZDT 806 (13 September 2024) [pdf, 113 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 806 APPLICANT BI RESPONDENT ID The Tribunal orders: 1. ID is to pay BI the sum of $12,368.98.00 in full, on or before 5pm Monday 21 October 2024. Reasons: 2. BI said that in May 2023, he was driving along [Street] in [Suburb] heading towards the city with his friend S, when ID who was driving a white van along BI’s inside lane, sudd

7. EF v TB [2024] NZDT 617 (12 September 2024) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...impact caused significant damage to the van and to the contents within, which were damaged by paint that spilled on impact. EF claims for the losses incurred in the accident. 2. The issues for the Tribunal to determine are as follows: i. Was TB negligent? ii. In the event TB was negligent, what losses has EF suffered? Is TB liable to compensate EF for those losses? Was TB negligent? 3. Every person has a duty to take reasonable care to ensure they do not cause harm to a...

8. EU v G Ltd [2024] NZDT 181 (13 June 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...remedial work would be required to keep the highway open. [4] The evidence shows the respondent took steps to carry out this repair and on the applicant’s evidence by the afternoon had workers on site. [5] The applicant claims the respondent was negligent in that it took too long to close the road and that there was no, or inadequate signage of the work being carried out. The applicant claims it was the respondent’s negligence in not providing adequate signage and enforcing a road c...

9. GS v SHH & HSG [2015] NZDT 1045 (30 September 2015) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...hearing going ahead. Issues [5] The issues to be determined are: a. When did the prior crash happen? When was SHH/HSG informed of the fuel spill? Did any delay by SHH/HSG in responding to the fuel spill cause Ms GS’s crash? b. If SHH/HSG was negligent, what sum is payable in damages? c. Did SGA Ltd cause further damage by negligent towing? d. If so, what sum is payable in damages by SGA Ltd? When did the prior crash happen? When was SHH/HSG informed of the fuel spill? Did...

10. DS & ES v KE & X Ltd [2024] NZDT 767 (8 October 2024) [pdf, 99 KB]

    ...Did the Respondent cause damage to the vehicle? 3. I find that, on the evidence, it cannot be determined on a balance of probabilities that the Respondent did cause the damage to the Applicant’s vehicle. 4. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that a person owes to another to take care. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. The standard of care required is that of a reasonable prudent driver. A...