842 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1638 APPLICANT HU RESPONDENT TM APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) X Ltd The Tribunal orders: TM is to pay X Ltd $2,237.56 within 28 days. Reasons [1] HU and his insurer, X Ltd, represented by QL, claim from TM the cost of repairing HU’s car, which was damaged in a collision with a car driven by TM o
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2016] NZDT 970 BETWEEN DV APPLICANT AND VE RESPONDENT Date of Order: 22 August 2016 Referee: Referee Perfect ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that VE is liable to pay the sum of $3,554.00 directly to DV on or before 12 September 2016. Facts [1] DV was riding her motor scooter in the bus lane (as allowed) on A St when a vehicle turned right across her path, moving through a gap...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 42 APPLICANT DD RESPONDENT KI RESPONDENT INSURER (if applicable) X Ltd The Tribunal orders: X Ltd is to pay DD $7,725.00 within 28 days. KI did not appear at the hearing. Reasons [1] DD claims from KI and KI’s insurer, X Ltd, represented by ON, compensation for the damage done to his, DD’s, car, which
...amount on the basis that QN shared the blame for the damage. 9. The issue is whether UN is liable for the damage to QN’s vehicle. 10. In order for UN to be held liable, it has to be proven that UN’s staff member was negligent. A finding of negligence requires that there be a duty of care, a breach of that duty and damage as the direct result of that breach. 11. The staff member had a duty of care when he undertook to assist QN in loading the wine barrels into QN’s vehicle...
...representative. Issues 4. The issues I need to determine are: (a) Did the Staff Member breach a duty he owed to KD and, if so, did this damage the Car and/or did KD cause or contribute to the damage? (a) Is TB Ltd vicariously liable for the negligence of the Staff Member? (b) Is KD entitled to a remedy from TB Ltd and, if so, is the amount he claims proved and reasonable? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 Did the Staff Member breach a duty he owed to KD and, if...
...$1,166.10, all of which was uninsured. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Did the parties reach a binding settlement agreement? b) Did DK to give way? Was FT negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision? c) Was there any contributory negligence on the part of HD? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 d) What sum should be paid between the parties? Did the parties reach a binding settlement agreement? 4. FT gave evidence that he offered to have HD’s car repaired by...
...paintwork? (b) If so, what loss can SX show she has incurred that her insurer is entitled to be indemnified for? Did M Ltd breach its duty of care by water blasting close to SX’s vehicle and cause damage to the paintwork? 3. The law of negligence provides that a duty of care exits in situations where a person can reasonably foresee that as a consequence of their action that someone else’s property may be damaged. In this case, SX considered M Ltd breached its duty of care as...
...traffic. It was therefore not the layout of the road or vegetation that was planted on the side that caused or even contributed to the collision, but rather due to how the driver operated their motor vehicle. 9. In this case, there has been an act of negligence, but it was not due to any breach of a duty of care by the Council. Rather, it was through the careless driving of the person operating the motor vehicle on that night. The Council are not liable for a driver who drives out of...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 574 APPLICANT BT RESPONDENT U Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim in negligence is dismissed; and The Tribunal approves the following settlement: The parties agree that U Ltd will pay $15,000.00 to BT on or before 27 August 2024. Reasons 1. On [date] BT delivered his [car] to U Ltd to have new tyres fitted. The tyres re...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 37 APPLICANT EC RESPONDENT ST APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) BC Limited The Tribunal orders: ST is to pay BC Limited $4,539.70 within 28 days of the date of this order. Reasons 1. The applicant, EC, was travelling north along [road 1] when the front of ST’s vehicle hit the right side of EC’s vehicle....