Search Results

1. People remanded on bail or at large and offending on bail or at large June 2019 [xlsx, 287 KB]

   ...definitions and data notes Back to contents page Example interpretation: There were some differences in the type of offence that was the most serious for each remand type. For 'at large' in 2017/2018, half of people (49%) had a 'traffic and vehicle regulatory' offence (eg excess breath alcohol) as their most serious offence and 22% had an offence for 'dangerous or negligent act endangering persons' (eg careless driving). For 'bail', 25% of people in 201...

2. People remanded on bail or at large and offending on bail or at large December 2018 [xlsx, 281 KB]

   ...definitions and data notes Back to contents page Example interpretation: There were some differences in the type of offence that was the most serious for each remand type. For 'at large' in 2017, half of people (49%) had a 'traffic and vehicle regulatory' offence (eg excess breath alcohol) as their most serious offence and 21% had an offence for 'dangerous or negligent act endangering persons' (eg careless driving). For 'bail', 26% of people in 2017 had...

3. KB v MY [2019] NZDT 1390 (29 May 2019) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...partially or fully in Mr Y’s favour. 6. The issues to determine are: • Was Mr Y moving from a stationary position at the left-hand side of the road or was he stationary in the flush median at the point of impact? • What is the liability in negligence of each driver? • What reasonable losses were suffered by each driver? Was Mr Y moving right from a stationary position at the left-hand side of the road or was he stationary in the flush median at the point of impact?...

4. EO v UL LTD 2016 NZDT 979 (17 November 2016) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...the [X] motorway at about 6.30am on Monday 11 January 2016 when he struck an object sitting in his lane. The object turned out to be a grey metal digger bucket. [2] The bucket was the property of UL Ltd. EO contends that UL Ltd’s driver was negligent in not securing his load that morning and that his negligence has resulted in damage to EO’s car and associated losses to the value of $8500.00. [3] Mr A for UL Ltd contends that the digger bucket was stolen from its trailer out...

5. BD v J Ltd ES [2021] NZDT 1648 (24 June 2021) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...responsibility shared? b. Are the costs claimed reasonable to put the innocent party back in the position they would have been had the collision not occurred? Is ES or BD responsible for the collision, or is responsibility shared? 5. Under the law of negligence all drivers owe other road users a duty of care. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. The Land transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (LTR) states the rules that all drivers must abi...

6. People remanded on bail or at large and offending on bail or at large June 2022 [xlsx, 278 KB]

   ...more information on how to interpret these figures, please read the definitions and data notes Back to contents page Example interpretation: For 'at large' in 2020/2021, just over half of people (57%; 7,599 people) had a 'traffic and vehicle regulatory' offence (eg excess breath alcohol) as their most serious offence. Choose which types to show or hide Choose which offence types to show or hide Number of people Percentage of remand type total Remand type Most s...

7. FL & UL v DB [2021] NZDT 1595 (19 July 2021) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...contribute to the crash by using the flush median illegally? iii. If both drivers are at fault what is the apportionment of liability? iv. What sum is payable by DB? Did DB have a duty to give way and if so, did he give way? 7. Under the law of negligence all drivers owe other road users a duty of care. The duty of care requires drivers to drive to the standard of a reasonable and prudent driver. This standard can be determined by considering the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (...

8. ZM v TU & D Ltd [2024] NZDT 222 (21 March 2024) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...cause of the collision? c. If so, is the company vicariously liable? d. If so, what is the reasonable cost to restore ZM’s car back to the position it was in prior to the collision, and what, if any, sum should be deducted for any contributory negligence by ZM? e. Is the company entitled to compensation for lost earnings while attending the hearing? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 Was TU responsible for the collision? 6. The law of negligence applies. Drivers must t...

9. TN v SH [2024] NZDT 569 (5 July 2024) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...$20,000.00 as claimed, or to any other sum? c. Did BN contribute in any way to the collision or damage, and if so, does that affect the right to claim loss? Did damage result from TH’s failure to take reasonable care? 7. Under the law of negligence, drivers of vehicles have a duty of care to other road users including to take care not to drive in a manner than causes damage to another vehicle. The Land Transport CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 (Road User) Rule 2004...

10. [2019] NZCAA 1 (18 January 2019) [pdf, 216 KB]

    ...appeal on the papers under s 258 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Taking that approach leaves a risk that the parties may not have been heard adequately, particularly where only one party is represented by a lawyer. [2] The appeal relates to a vehicle being a Nissan NV200 Vanette 2012 (the vehicle). It was imported into New Zealand and seized on 14 March 2017 on the basis that under s 225(1)(n) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 (the Act) it was a good that had “been unlawful...