Search Results

1. Outcomes for Mentally Impaired Persons June 2023 [xlsx, 97 KB]

   ...offences 4 2 2 4 3 2 4 2 9 5 1% <1% 1% 1% 1% <1% 1% <1% 1% 1% 02: Acts intended to cause injury 86 94 98 202 169 152 161 207 205 210 28% 21% 28% 32% 31% 27% 35% 27% 29% 30% 03: Sexual assault and related offences 42 140 56 80 72 43 36 38 75 84 14% 31% 16% 13% 13% 8% 8% 5% 11% 12% 04: Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons 5 6 11 11 16 13 11 24 21 6 2% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 3% 1% 05: Abduction, harassment and other offences against the person 14 28 23 34 37 36 31 65 52 58 5%...

2. PV v OS & B Ltd [2023] NZDT 172 (3 May 2023) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...carriers fitted to the sides of the van to carry glass. He had a duty to see if anyone was approaching (if indeed PV was approaching). The duty does not rest on PV as he was in his lane. On that basis I find that OS breached his duty of care. He was negligent. 11. In any event: a. OS was speaking to WS on the phone at the time (whether or not he was on handheld or handsfree). Drivers must ensure there are no distractions which cause them to lose concentration when driving. b....

3. OB v BB [2023] NZDT 33 (7 February 2023) [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...driver first, then an adjournment for a formal lodging of BB’s costs if liability on the part of BH was proven. 6. The issues to be determined are: • Where were the cars positioned on the road when the impact occurred? • Is BB liable in negligence for causing the collision? • What are the reasonable costs suffered? Where were the cars positioned on the road when the impact occurred? 7. BH says that BB had indicated left and pulled into the kerb on the left and stopped...

4. OQ v N Ltd [2023] NZDT 660 (24 November 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...OQ claims reimbursement of the replacement cost. 2. Both parties attended the hearings. Mr and Mrs B represented N Ltd at the first hearing, and Mr B at the second hearing. 3. The hearing was adjourned to enable the parties to provide a further vehicle assessment and for N Ltd to contact its insurer. 4. Before the vehicle could be taken for assessment, it was repossessed by the finance company as OQ could not afford repayments on the car as well as the cost of a replacement vehicle...

5. People found unfit to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity June 2017 [xlsx, 77 KB]

   ...division) 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 01: Homicide and related offences 4 3 3 2 5 2 4 2 2 4 02: Acts intended to cause injury 39 61 63 51 99 93 90 94 102 203 03: Sexual assault and related offences 22 19 30 48 17 27 42 143 57 80 04: Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons 0 3 1 6 4 4 5 6 11 11 05: Abduction, harassment and other offences against the person 9 13 8 16 23 24 14 28 23 34 06: Robbery, extortion and...

6. People found unfit to stand trial or not guilty by insanity December 2017 [xlsx, 82 KB]

   ...division) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 01: Homicide and related offences 5 2 2 5 3 1 5 0 4 4 02: Acts intended to cause injury 61 56 52 87 105 71 93 107 119 220 03: Sexual assault and related offences 29 26 30 34 25 35 30 155 68 93 04: Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons 2 2 1 7 4 6 4 6 14 11 05: Abduction, harassment and other offences against the person 15 8 15 21 22 19 15 33 26 34 06: Robbery, extortion and related offences 2 0 4 8 5 2 3 3 7 2 07: Unla...

7. OT v C Ltd [2025] NZDT 99 (9 May 2025) [pdf, 179 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2025] NZDT 99 APPLICANT OT RESPONDENT C Ltd APPLICANT'S INSURER U Ltd The Tribunal orders: Claim Dismissed. REASONS 1. At about 3.15 p.m. on 14 January 2025 OT was driving along the road between [Street 1] and [Street 2], heading home to [Street 2]. At or near the roundabout of [Street 3/ Street 4] intersection, the paintwork and

8. ACJ v ZXV [2013] NZDT 147 (5 June 2013) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...before 3 July 2013. Facts [1] At approximately 12.20 a.m. on 3 November 2012, ZXV was driving home from a friend’s place when he suffered a “blackout” at the wheel caused by an epileptic seizure. As a result, he lost control of his vehicle, and hit a parked car belonging to ACJ. [2] The damage to ACJ’s vehicle cost approximately $3,264.20 to repair. [3] ACJ and his insurer, GF Insurance Ltd, filed a claim seeking repayment of this sum from ZXV. ZXV also fil...

9. VL v U Ltd & LF Ltd [2023] NZDT 671 (6 December 2023) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...mounting seal/ring that has caused the motor to be unaligned with the flywheel has nothing to do with the incorrect towing, or the replaced transmission. 9. LF Ltd declined to replace the flexiplate, as they determined the issues was due to a negligent service history rather than to any actions by themselves or U Ltd. 10. At the hearing on 19 January 2023, the parties agreed that the flexiplate on VL’s vehicle was damaged but disagreed as to the cause of the damage; whether i...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Dangen [2019] NZLCDT 22 [pdf, 502 KB]

    ...Pyke for the Practitioner 2 RESERVED REASONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR PENALTY ORDERS MADE 6 AUGUST 2019 Introduction [1] This decision provides reasons for the penalty imposed on a practitioner who has admitted a single charge of negligence. The negligence, found to be so serious “as to tend to bring the profession into disrepute”1 was in connection with her conduct as a property manager and welfare guardian for an elderly woman suffering from dementia.2 [2]...