Search Results

1. LD v BK [2025] NZDT 257 (15 July 2025) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...even if LD had braked suddenly, which he denies and which there is no independent evidence to prove, it is still the rear driver’s sole responsibility to avoid colliding with the rear of his car. Braking suddenly at a give way sign is prudent, not negligent, if a driver thinks they have seen an oncoming vehicle they hadn’t previously seen or thinks they may have misjudged its speed, or is for any reason unsure that it CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 is safe to pull...

2. DI v EL & N Ltd [2024] NZDT 81 (23 January 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...duty of care as a driver turning right? 4. I find that EL breached the duty he owed as a driver turning right to give way to all traffic travelling straight ahead in the lanes across which he was turning. 5. 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. 6. The duty to take reasonable care includes a duty to follow the...

3. CQ Ltd v CE [2024] NZDT 473 (12 June 2024) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...median strip to turn right and the two cars collided. 3. The issues for the Tribunal to determine are whether CE caused the damage to NB’s van and whether the costs of repair are reasonable. 4. The law governing this claim is the law of negligence. All drivers owe a duty of care to other roads users not to drive carelessly and damage other people’s property while driving. The standard by which negligence on the road is judged is found in the Land Transport Act 1998 and the L...

4. Final-Technical-Assessment-E-Social-Impact-Assessment-v2.pdf [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...live, community character, health and wellbeing and the quality of the living environment. This will be achieved by reducing road noise and the visual presence of the Project. 23. With mitigation, local scale impacts are assessed as potentially negligible to very-low negative social impacts. Sub-local scale social impacts are assessed as negligible to moderate. INTRODUCTION 24. I, Joanne Healy of Beca Limited, am the Primary Author of this assessment, supported by my team of...

5. SM v KK [2024] NZDT 428 (17 May 2024) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...The entrance to the roundabout is controlled by give way signs. SM had entered the roundabout and was travelling in the right lane with the intention of exiting south onto [Road 1]. He had almost reached the [Road 1] exit when the left front of his vehicle hit the right side of KK’s vehicle. 2. The parties do not dispute how the incident occurred, other than who entered the roundabout first and whether SM indicated his intention to exit the roundabout. They also do not dispute the...

6. E Ltd v KC [2024] NZDT 443 (27 May 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...road when it should not have been? c. Is J Ltd estopped from pursuing the current claim against KC? d. Are the repair costs claimed reasonable? Did KC cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? 6. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to act in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. In other words, they must drive with reasonable care. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 7. Drivers must also abide by the applicable rules f...

7. CL v NV [2024] NZDT 123 (31 January 2024) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 to pass on the left of another vehicle moving in the same direction unless the movement can be made with safety and is made with due consideration for other users of the road. It is also mandatory that the two vehicles are in different lanes, or the overtaken vehicle is stationary, or its driver has given or is giving the prescribed signal of her intention to turn to the right. [7] If these conditions are not met, then the overtaking driver, albeit t...

8. SFM Ltd v VI Ltd WJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1705 (7 September 2021) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...4. The issues to be decided are: a) Did VI owe a duty of care to SFM in transporting its load? b) If so, did VI fail in its duty to take care? c) If so, is VI liable to pay all or any of the costs claimed by SFM? 5. SFM’s claim is based in negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that one person owes another to take care. Negligence requires four elements to be proven: i) that a duty of care exists between the parties; ii) that there was a breach of that duty; iii) that the dam...

9. People charged and convicted of offences December 2017 [xlsx, 481 KB]

   ...offences 230 232 244 184 144 203 227 174 233 224 02: Acts intended to cause injury 32,382 34,595 32,289 29,856 28,425 25,436 22,299 23,020 24,315 25,531 03: Sexual assault and related offences 4,655 4,826 5,372 5,050 5,546 5,903 5,254 5,731 5,509 5,536 04: Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons 21,548 20,557 17,900 15,194 14,260 12,668 10,945 10,636 11,654 12,513 05: Abduction, harassment and other offences against the person 5,613 6,114 5,768 5,384 4,945 4,524 4,353 4,775 5,511 5,...

10. KH v IC [2025] NZDT 182 (15 May 2025) [pdf, 136 KB]

    ...DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2025] NZDT 182 APPLICANT KH RESPONDENT IC APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 2 January 2021, KH was driving his [vehicle] on [Street], [Town] in a westbound direction. IC was riding his motorcycle on the same road in an eastbound direction, following his brother who was also on a motorcycle. 2. There was a head on collision between the parties with seri...