Search Results

1. HX v ZD [2024] NZDT 771 (4 October 2024) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...not divided by an adequate fence are liable to contribute in equal proportions to work on a fence. 5. One of the exceptions to the general rule of equal contributions under the Act is found in s 17, which provides that an occupier who is legally responsible for damaging a fence is liable for the whole cost of repairing the fence. HX sought to rely on this exception to claim that ZD should cover the whole cost of erecting a fence to replace the hedge. ZD responded that he was entitled to...

2. [2025] NZEmpC 61 Faitala and Vea v The Pacific Island Business Development Trust [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...pay an award of costs if her challenge was unsuccessful. Mrs Vea has given evidence to this effect. (b) An order is just in the circumstances as the merits of Mrs Vea’s claim are weak and unlikely to succeed. (c) The Trust denies that it is responsible for Mrs Vea’s current financial position. It points to Mrs Vea’s failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate her losses as the basis for her current financial position. (d) Despite Mrs Vea and Mr Faitala advancing their cha...

3. MO v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 367 (20 June 2024) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...In any event, the evidence provided to me did not establish negligence or any other fault on the part of D Ltd. [11] I do not consider that MO’s statement that he bit more than once on the object that he found in the [snack] should lead to any responsibility on his part. He reasonably expected that the [snack] contained nuts. He should not reasonably have expected to find a hard date pit in the [snack]. What compensation should be paid by D Ltd? [12] As D Ltd has committed to pay...

4. OC v KD & BD [2024] NZDT 393 (24 April 2024) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...air. It is clear from the report from her tradesman who viewed the heatpump on 10 November 2023, that this was caused by a faulty reversing valve. 8. KD and BD say that had the fault been found on 2 November 2023, they would have readily accepted responsibility for it. They feel it is unfair to be asked to pay for a fault found after settlement. They feel that such a rule opens vendors up to potential ongoing liability for problems which a purchaser finds after settlement. 9. They...

5. BI v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 614 (8 August 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...she was able to drive from [North Island City] to [South Island City] is reasonable evidence that she would have been able to drive it anywhere else that she wished to go. If it had broken down U Ltd would have been required to comply with its legal responsibilities which are not necessary to address here as the camper did not break down. b. While BI was not able to keep food cold using the camper fridge or the plug-in cool box, I am not persuaded that this fact alone should have ha...

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

   ...registered owner of the vehicle claims $20,000.00 for the value of his [vehicle], which he says was so extensively damaged in the head-on collision, it is uneconomic to repair. The [vehicle] was not insured. 4. SH says his mother should not be held responsible for damage because BN was driving in breach of the terms of his learner licence. That is, BN did not have “L” plates displayed on the vehicle and was not with a supervising driver. SH says his mother suffered injuries and shoc...

7. KI v KB [2024] NZDT 467 (5 June 2024) [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...period, causing overheating and leading to the major problems experienced as described by WX (one of KI’s mechanics). KB points out that KI had been driving the vehicle for a month when the major problem became evident and that the driver has a responsibility to check oil and water levels regularly. 12. I also note that KI had carried out a thorough inspection of the vehicle prior to purchase and that neither he nor two mechanics who looked at the vehicle noticed any overheating or o...

8. OC v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 409 (13 May 2024) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...attempting to put [exhaust fluid] in a petrol tank that something is wrong. 18. N Ltd has taken reasonable steps to alert driver using its self- service station as to when the [exhaust fluid] product should or should not be used. It cannot be held responsible for drivers who do not read the signage which is present at the pump. 19. OC raised several other matters during the hearing including N Ltd’s website not containing required information. She also claimed that relevant in...

9. ET v F Ltd & EN [2024] NZDT 562 (9 August 2024) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...cause a vehicle to be driven, carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other persons: s8 Land Transport Act 1998. A driver also owes a common law duty of care to other drivers to take reasonable care in operating their vehicle and will be responsible for any reasonably foreseeable damage suffered as a result of a failure to do so. 11. In establishing whether a driver has been careless, the test is whether the driver failed to exercise the care that would have been taken by...

10. Tipene v Ashby - Motatau 2 Section 31C (2025) 291 Taitokerau MB 211 (291 TTK 211) [pdf, 222 KB]

    ...the evidence, that she had not understood what was said. [28] It should also be noted that the Trustees did respond to aspects of the application as it related to the enforcement of the obligations of the trust. This was both in their written response and the oral evidence given. This evidence is on the Court file and the applicant had the opportunity to respond to it at the hearing. [29] Therefore, based on the above discussion, I consider that the applicant had every opportuni...