Search Results

1. JC v KB [2019] NZDT 1387 (3 July 2019) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...formalise such a promise into a binding agreement. Mr B paid $910.00 towards the car losses on the basis of his promise, but once the relationship ended he changed his mind about making further payments. 7. As Ms C is not the owner of the damaged vehicle, she is unable to make a negligence claim against Mr B for the vehicle losses. His view that he is 65% liable for the losses in negligence can only be considered in the context of a claim in negligence by the owner of the car, so is n...

2. IO v XU & M Ltd [2024] NZDT 279 (5 March 2024) [pdf, 100 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 279 APPLICANT IO RESPONDENT XU SECOND RESPONDENT M Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The counter-claim is dismissed. Background 1. IO and XU were involved in an accident on [a beach] on 5 December 2023. 2. IO was driving [car 1]. XU was driving [car 2] that is owned by his employer M Ltd.

3. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 WML reply Mark Appeldoorn tracked [pdf, 718 KB]

   ...January 2014 ferry passenger day results were 24% higher than any of the data points4 for 2012 and 2013. 13. On these bases I have concluded that there is a high degree of confidence that the marina generated vehicle movements will have a negligible effect on traffic (including public transport and tourism vehicles) moving through or around within the keyhole area, either in the 3rd busiest design week or on the busiest individual day. Delay effects due to parking and un-par...

4. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 WML rebuttal Mark Apeldoorn [pdf, 718 KB]

   ...January 2014 ferry passenger day results were 24% higher than any of the data points4 for 2012 and 2013. 13. On these bases I have concluded that there is a high degree of confidence that the marina generated vehicle movements will have a negligible effect on traffic (including public transport and tourism vehicles) moving through or around within the keyhole area, either in the 3rd busiest design week or on the busiest individual day. Delay effects due to parking and un-p...

5. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 WML reply Mark Appeldoorn final [pdf, 717 KB]

   ...January 2014 ferry passenger day results were 24% higher than any of the data points4 for 2012 and 2013. 13. On these bases I have concluded that there is a high degree of confidence that the marina generated vehicle movements will have a negligible effect on traffic (including public transport and tourism vehicles) moving through or around within the keyhole area, either in the 3rd busiest design week or on the busiest individual day. Delay effects due to parking and un-par...

6. DV v VE [2016] NZDT 970 (22 August 2016) [pdf, 22 KB]

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2016] NZDT 970 BETWEEN DV APPLICANT AND VE RESPONDENT Date of Order: 22 August 2016 Referee: Referee Perfect ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that VE is liable to pay the sum of $3,554.00 directly to DV on or before 12 September 2016. Facts [1] DV was riding her motor scooter in the bus lane (as allowed) on A St when a vehicle turned right across her path, moving through a gap...

7. TG & TS v NS & Ors [2023] NZDT 332 (9 August 2023) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...that it is more likely than not that there was a collision in which the car driven by BH hit the back of TS’s car, and that this collision was caused by BH failing to stop his car safely behind TS’s car. 10. The law that applies is the law of negligence. Drivers must take reasonable care in operating their vehicle and are responsible for any reasonably foreseeable damage suffered as a result of a failure to do so. 11. The duty to take reasonable care includes a duty to follow...

8. BH v JT [2024] NZDT 65 (17 January 2024) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 65 APPLICANT BH RESPONDENT JT APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) W Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by BH is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 16 August 2023, BH’s [vehicle] was damaged while it was parked outside [address]. BH’s daughter who was the driver at the time believed the damage was caused by JT whose vehicle was passing her car at the time she looked up. JT denies hitting the [vehicle] an...

9. [2013] NZEmpC 200 Jonas v Menefy Trucking Ltd [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...whether it was safe to operate on the road. This is an event that concerns me considerably, you have been reckless, careless and it would seem, have acted deliberately. The allegations that I put to you are: You have demonstrated a negligent approach to your driving. You have demonstrated a serious breach of your obligations as an employee to operate a truck safely. Your actions and conduct have potentially brought Menefy Trucking Ltd into disrepute. Your act...

10. People discharged without conviction December 2017 [xlsx, 293 KB]

    ...discharged without conviction for homicide offences from 2013 is due to changes in offence categorisation. Prior to December 2012, offences for driving causing death and driving causing injury were a combined category coded to division 04: Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons. From 2013 onwards, these offences were separated and offences for driving causing death (eg Careless or inconsiderate vehicle operation causing death (on a road)) were coded to 01: Homicide and related offences...