Search Results

1. LD v EQ [2023] NZDT 522 (25 September 2023) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 Were EQ and NQ negligent in the care of the tree? 6. If you have a duty of care to ensure nothing reasonably foreseeable damages another persons property and through your actions or inactions, damage occurs you may be responsible for making good that damage. 7. LD told me EQ and NQ failed to maintain this tree and other trees on their property, keeping chickens around the base of the tree eroded natural vegetation that would stabilise the tree...

2. Form-42_Civil_Victims-Order.pdf [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...reasonably incurred. • No other payment, remuneration or benefit has been or will be received in respect of this work (unless authorised by Legal Aid). • Any non-lawyer or supervised provider performed his or her work under my supervision and I am responsible for it. I acknowledge that: • If this case is subject to a user charge, the total approved payment may be reduced by the amount of the user charge where the total approved is more than the user charge. Signature of lead...

3. MOJ0510-Going-through-the-Family-Court-to-work-out-parenting-arrangements-Large-Print.pdf [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...If you can’t agree on a guardianship issue, such as what school the child will go to, medical treatment, religion, or name changes. You’ll usually need to show you’ve tried Family Dispute Resolution. Note: A guardian is an adult who is responsible for the upbringing and care of a child. Complete an application To get an application form, you can: • download the forms from the Ministry of Justice website: justice.govt.nz/apply-to-the-family-court • freephone th...

4. LC v NS [2023] NZDT 220 (18 April 2023) [pdf, 95 KB]

   Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 220 APPLICANT LC RESPONDENT NS The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. Any applicant to the Tribunal has the task of establishing the legal and factual elements of its claim to the required evidential standard. That standard is the balance of probabilities which means what is more likely than not. 2. LC says:

5. [2023] NZEnvC 160 Te Mana Moana o Ngati Irapuaia Trust v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...Tamahaua filed an application for a waiver of time under s 281 RMA. The waiver is sought on the grounds that: (a) the delay in filing the notice was minor; and (b) no party will be unduly prejudiced by granting the waiver. The parties’ responses to the application Ngāti Ira hapu will abide the decision of the Court. Bay of Plenty Regional Council does not oppose the waiver application. 3 Ōpōtiki Marina and Industrial Park Limited consents to the Court granting t...

6. KQ v UN [2024] NZDT 52 (19 January 2024) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...18 April 2023, KQ discovered that his [car 1] had been damaged while parked in his driveway. The car’s camera recorded that the damage was caused by a dog, and KQ approached UN’s family about the damage. UN concedes that her [dog] was the dog responsible for the damage. 2. KQ did not notice until later that day or the next day that his [car 2] had also been damaged. This damage had not been caught on camera, but appeared to be caused by dog bites like the damage to [car 1]. 3....

7. HN v CN [2024] NZDT 20 (22 January 2024) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...sum of $100 to be fair and reasonable compensation. 9. HN claims for the cost of replacing a towel stained with grease. CN had a duty to ensure she took adequate care to ensure she did not cause loss or damage to HN’s property. CN accepted responsibility for the towel in an email. HN claims the sum of $100 for a replacement however I find this to be high without supportive evidence. As the towel was damaged, I find the sum of $40 for compensation to be fair and reasonable. 10....

8. OT v KD [2024] NZDT 49 (15 February 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...he had pleaded guilty in the District Court, and had been ordered to pay OT reparation of $500.00, the value of her insurance excess. [3] OT said that she had bought the vehicle from [car manufacturer]. It was on hire purchase for which she was responsible, and registered in her name. She had driven it frequently, and used it for her work purposes. Both she and KD had had keys for it. She provided details of the personal items that had been in the vehicle at the time it was removed from...

9. O Ltd v TO [2023] NZDT 341 (24 May 2023) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...particular, limited circumstances, none of which apply here. I accept that TO was genuinely trying to find and name EO/his company, she did not intentionally name the wrong entity. 5. I also accept that her mistake prompted a particularly strong response from O Ltd because they have found themselves in this unfortunate situation before, having been named mistakenly in a summary judgement case for a significantly higher amount some years ago. That meant they defended themselves vig...

10. LN v HN & FN [2024] NZDT 271 (4 April 2024) [pdf, 94 KB]

    ...the calves means that he can no longer sell or transport them. 7. On the day that the tagging happened there was a violent confrontation between LN and HN. 8. There is a complicated question about the ongoing management of the farm – who is responsible for working the farm, how is the revenue from the farm handled, how is money invested back into the farm, etc. Those questions are beyond the scope of these proceedings. 9. The claim before the Tribunal relates to the ownership...