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. 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...

3. 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...

4. 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...

5. [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...

6. 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...

7. KE v TX [2022] NZDT 277 (2 December 2022) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...won the auction when it ended. He says as he was not aware that a bid had been made, that he ignored KE’s emails as he thought they may be a scam. 4. TX stated at the hearing that while he could accept some liability for the loss, as he was negligent in supervising his daughters use of his laptop, he did not feel that he was responsible for the entire amount of KE’s loss as it was his daughter and not him who made the bid. 5. Even if I were to accept that it was TX’s daught...

8. KN v ID Inc [2021] NZDT 1527 (13 August 2021) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...a. Did the respondents owe a duty of care? b. Was that duty breached? c. If so, did the breach cause the damage and was it foreseeable? d. What is the reasonable cost of repairing the damage? Did the respondents owe a duty of care? 4. In a negligence claim four elements must be proven. The first is the duty of care. A duty of care arises when parties are in close proximity to each other and it is reasonably foreseeable that if a standard of reasonable care is not adhered to then th...

9. KQ & LT v SG [2023] NZDT 287 (13 June 2023) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...$4,405.65 on or before Friday 7 July 2023. Reasons: 1. KQ and LT own a home in [City]. SG previously occupied the adjoining property. KQ and LT say that in October 2021 SG damaged the brick boundary fence between the properties when reversing his vehicle out of his driveway. Despite expressing their concerns KQ and LT say SG then took it upon himself to make repairs. These repairs are described by KQ and LT as of poor quality and using materials not in keeping with the original bric...

10. OS & KB Ltd v KS & NS [2023] NZDT 187 (18 April 2023) [pdf, 153 KB]

    ...was instructing NS about using the brake and accelerator pedals at the time of the collision and had also taken responsibility for keeping a look out for other vehicles. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 6. The law that applies is the law of negligence. The law that applies is the law of negligence. Drivers of vehicles owe a duty to drive with reasonable care and are responsible for any reasonably foreseeable damage suffered as a result of a failure to do so. The duty to take reas...