Search Results

1. ND v BC [2022] NZDT 128 (15 August 2022) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...circumstances of possession. Whether the duty has been breached is decided by asking what reasonable care requires of a bailee in the circumstances of the case. This provides an objective standard of care against which the actions of a bailee alleged to be negligent can be compared. Factors that are relevant are the nature of the goods and the bailment. [15] BC did not accept he had liability for the damage to the truck at the first hearing. He did not attend the second hearing and th...

2. IM v KE [2024] NZDT 301 (8 May 2024) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...The Tribunal orders: KE is to pay $250.00 to IM on or before 31 May 2024. REASONS Brief Details of Claim 1. On or about 14 December 2023, IM drove into the carpark of [café]. IM says as she pulled up, a large dog started jumping up at her vehicle. IM went into the café to enquire as to whose dog it was. A person from the café came out and IM and that person caught the dog. The person from the café tied the dog up out the back of the cafe. There was a tag on the dog’s colla...

3. ET v TM [2023] NZDT 453 (21 August 2023) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...repairs to [car 1] of $6,017.15. There were no uninsured losses. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Who was responsible for the collision? b) What sum, if any, is TM liable to pay? Who was responsible for the collision? 4. The tort of negligence requires payment of compensation when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Drivers have a duty of care towards other drivers, which includes compliance with the provisions of the Land Transport A...

4. Sionepulu v Downer NZ Ltd & Police [2012] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...afternoon of 2 July 2012 counsel for both defendants made strike out applications. Both applications were granted. In this decision we set out our reasons. 2 Background [2] On the morning of 14 March 2011 Ms Sionepulu was the driver of a vehicle travelling in a southerly direction over the Auckland Harbour Bridge towards the city. On her account, she was in a middle lane when she observed that in the lane on her right hand side a vehicle travelling in the same direction had br...

5. IH & KH v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 820 (21 October 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...in one of the units that share the boundary fence onto the shared driveway, say the area where Mr T says the stone came from is sprayed with weed killer and not mowed. 4. This dispute is about tort damage to property, which is where someone has negligently caused damage to another property. The most common tort damage claims are motor vehicle claims where one driver has negligently caused damaged to another person’s car or property. It is disputed whether B Ltd was the cause of the...

6. DN v TQ [2021] NZDT 1632 (4 October 2021) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...unable to provide objective evidence to support speed as a factor and while TQ may have been travelling at speed, it is unproved. 19. For these reasons, I find that DN contributed to the collision. If so, what is the remedy? 20. A person who negligently damages another person’s property is required to put that person back into the position they were in before the damage occurred. 21. DN provided the Tribunal with a copy of an estimate from MC Ltd for the cost of repairing h...

7. BT v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 201 (8 April 2024) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...the contract of carriage provide for some liability. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 5 25. It is clear that there was no intentional loss caused by U Ltd. This is not even alleged by BT who describes the loss as being the result of “gross negligence.” Accordingly, if U Ltd has any liability, that will have to be provided for in the terms of carriage. 26. Neither party could point to any terms of the contract. The general law will therefore apply. There are four types of c...

8. T Ltd v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 521 (28 September 2023) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...those acts. T Ltd would be liable for the fraudulent conduct of an employee or visitor to its premises only if it had authorised that person, or held him or her out as authorised, to deal with T Ltd’s finances; or if T Ltd’s office practice was negligent, so as to enable a financial fraud to be carried out. Thus, if the fraud were committed by, for example, a cleaner or mechanic, T Ltd would be vicariously liable for his or her wrongdoing only if T Ltd’s careless conduct enabled it....

9. AGQ v ZTY [2013] NZDT 355 (6 January 2014) [pdf, 25 KB]

   ...above I find the agreement between the parties is of no affect. What is the amount of AGQ’s loss? [12] As the agreement between the parties is of no effect, liability, as between the parties, returns to that determined under the tort of negligence. The tortious measure of damages seeks to put a party back into the position they were in before the tortious act took place. In this case AGQ purchased her car in January 2013 for $2,600.00 and, as noted earlier, given its age i...

10. AAQ Ltd v ZZJ, ZZK and ZZL [2013] NZDT 13 (16 April 2010) [pdf, 84 KB]

    ...ZZL Ltd) (s 26(a)(i) of the CGA); or ii. a cause independent of human control, occurring after the goods have left the control of ZZJ Ltd (s 26(a)(ii) of the CGA). [6] Similar liability would also exist under general principles of the law of negligence, but as the Consumer Guarantees Act has direct application, the former need not also be addressed. Issues [7] To succeed in its claim, AAQ Ltd must establish on the balance of probabilities that: (i) the fuel it purchased...