Search Results

1. LCRO 13/2023 DG v PS (26 February 2025) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...that: The Committee did not consider that it was in any position to make a finding on whether Mr PS’s conduct had caused Mr DG to incur loss, and, if so, the quantum of that loss. The Committee considers that if Mr DG believes Mr PS has acted negligently causing him to sustain loss, it would be more appropriate for him to pursue his claim through the civil courts, given the allegations being made and the outcome sought.1 [41] The Committee ordered that: (i) Mr PS be censured;...

2. DC v CN [2025] NZDT 21 (10 April 2025) [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...DC’s car when he was obliged to do so, and also entered the intersection of [Street X] and [Road 1], intending to turn north into [Road 1], when it was not clear that the manoeuvre could be completed safely. 6. The law that applies is the law of negligence, which provides that every driver owes a duty of care to ensure they drive with reasonable care and skill so as not to cause damage to other road users. The duty to drive with reasonable care and skill includes an obligation to fo...

3. E Ltd & W Ltd v TN [2024] NZDT 712 (30 August 2024) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...stop sign. She alleged that the driver had driven forward and collided with her, but this was denied by the driver of the other car. The Police happened to be passing just after the collision occurred and they intervened. E Ltd, as the owner of the vehicle made a claim with W Ltd, their insurer. W Ltd held TN liable, but he declined to pay. A claim was filed by W Ltd in the name of the Applicant in the Disputes Tribunal. At the last appearance of the claim, TN said he wanted to file...

4. T Ltd v O Inc [2025] NZDT 169 (13 February 2025) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...5 of 6 a. O Inc’s conduct was the cause of the loss of opportunity; and b. T Ltd would have taken that opportunity. 29. In addition, T Ltd must be able to show that the prospect of obtaining the benefit was substantial, rather than negligible or speculative. The more contingencies there are, the lower the value of the chance or opportunity that a claimant has lost. Any compensation granted is not for the lost outcome but for lost chance for the outcome. 30. With all the...

5. ENVC Hearing 27Jul15 AC suppl evidence Sam Shumane [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...sufficient for most demands, at least when parking in other public facilities is available (on business days). 14. My analysis of the originally proposed marina concluded that with a 55 space facility there was potentially an overspill of up to 13 vehicles during the busiest summer weekend. With the proposed marina's reduction in capacity to 112 berths the potential overspill is in my opinion also likely to reduce to 8-9 vehicles. 15. Our agreed position as traffic and...

6. [2016] NZEmpC 136 Xtreme Dining Ltd t/a Think Steel v Dewar [pdf, 391 KB]

   XTREME DINING LIMITED TRADING AS THINK STEEL v LEIGHTON DEWAR NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 136 [31 October 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 136 EMPC 73/2016 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN XTREME DINING LIMITED TRADING AS THINK STEEL Plaintiff AND LEIGHTON DEWAR Defendant Hearing: Court: 26 and 27 July 2016 (heard at Christchurch

7. Public-Place-Amendment-Paper_FINAL.pdf [pdf, 571 KB]

   ...Alida Mercuri, General Manger, Criminal Justice Policy, Ministry of Justice Purpose 1. This aide-memoire outlines: • Crown Law’s advice about how the gang insignia display offence applies when insignia are displayed from inside a private vehicle in a public place, • the implementation implications of this advice for Police, and • options for next steps on the Gangs Bill. Key messages 2. The Gangs Bill seeks to criminalise the knowing display of gang insignia in a publ...

8. 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...

9. ABQ and ABR v ZYO [2013] NZDT 56 (5 June 2013) [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...costs to ABQ’s car? [4] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims based in contract and in tort. A tort is a civil wrong. Claims in tort can be heard by the Tribunal in respect of the destruction, loss, damage to or recovery of property. Negligence is the relevant tort relating to this claim. Negligence concerns the duties that a person owes another to take care. A driver is negligent if they breach a duty they owe to another driver and cause damage as a result. [5] In de...

10. 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...