Search Results

1. FG Ltd v SB & ID Ltd [2023] NZDT 173 (7 June 2023) [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...breach the duty of care owed to FG Limited? b) If so, are they bound to compensate FG Limited for its losses? Did SB and/or ID Limited breach the duty of care owed to FG Limited? 8. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a dispute based on negligence if the applicant has suffered damage to their property as a result. The law of negligence provides that we owe a duty of care to ensure we do not cause a loss to someone else due to our conduct. 9. ST said he travelled this...

2. OE v PN [2024] NZDT 179 (22 March 2024) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...come into contact. OE claims $2,119.99 for the damages caused to his car. 2. The issues to be resolved are: a. Did PN cause damage to OE’s car? b. If so, is OE entitled to claim $ 2,119.99? Did PN cause damage to OE’s car? 3. The law of negligence requires every driver to take care to drive in a manner that does not cause damage to other road user’s vehicles or property. Where both parties fall below that standard then both parties can be found to have contributed to the negl...

3. Allan v Christchurch City Council [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...was therefore no more than $58,768.16. The Tribunal noted that the actual painting costs incurred with the full remediation were $19,670.00 and so this deduction on the basis of a partial reclad was proportionate and appropriate. Contributory Negligence The Tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that they were not sufficiently aware of the degree of risk they were taking when purchasing their monolithically clad home as to amount to contributory negligence on their part. There w...

4. ST & CT v OU [2021] NZDT 1606 (21 June 2021) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...framing the claim in contract. The obligation to pay road user charges and road taxes does not arise from a voluntary exchange of promises (as in a contract). The obligation is statutory and mandatory. 10. In my view the claim is more cogent as a negligence claim. The Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear claims founded in tort that relate to physical damage to property. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 11. OU was not represented at the hearing, but it would be rela...

5. SA v TD & I Ltd [2021] NZDT 1646 (4 October 2021) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...RESPONDENT I Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. TD and I Ltd are to pay SA $3,075.96 on or before 29 October 2021. Reasons: 1. On 24 August 2020 SA was driving his car on [Road A] in [Suburb B] when he was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by TD. SA seeks an order that TD and his employer, I Ltd, are liable to pay the costs to repair SA’s car, which have been estimated at $4,732.25, together with his costs of this claim, which he says are $450.00. 2. The iss...

6. KT v EP [2024] NZDT 600 (30 August 2024) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...breach his duty of care by driving KT’s van and damaging it? (b) If so, what loss can KT show he has incurred that he is entitled to be compensated for? Did EP breach his duty of care by driving KT’s van and damaging it? 4. The law of negligence provides that we all have a duty of care to ensure that we do not cause harm to another person or their property. If a person can reasonably foresee that someone’s property may be damaged as a result of our conduct, then if that da...

7. ET & JT v AQ [2024] NZDT 295 (13 May 2024) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...on both cars points to AQ’s comment that [car 1] braked suddenly. This is set out in detail in his report to J Ltd (pages 35 to 38 of J Ltd’s bundle). MQ says he has 30 plus years in panel industry including damage analysis. Is AQ liable in negligence for the damage to JT’s car? 7. All drivers owe a duty of car to other road users to drive in a manner which does not cause injury to people or property. Any failure to do so breaches that duty and the driver liable for the cost...

8. HM & KM v DS [2024] NZDT 799 (9 October 2024) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...hearing, I am bound by those findings including that referred to in her lawyer’s email, that KM’s statement of having travelled along [Street 1] from [Street 3], was accepted by the District Court. 5. I must therefore find that DS is liable in negligence for this collision and that no contributory negligence on the part of KM has been established. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 6. With respect to costs, although KM’s vehicle was actually written off because of th...

9. SX v GO [2023] NZDT 686 (20 December 2023) [pdf, 107 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 686 APPLICANT SX RESPONDENT GO APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) K Insurance Ltd The Tribunal orders: GO is to pay $9343.84 (including a $1000.00 excess) to K Insurance Ltd on or before 31 January 2024. Reasons 1. At the first hearing, GO acknowledged liability for the vehicle collision in which SX had bra...

10. SM v KK [2024] NZDT 428 (17 May 2024) [pdf, 100 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 428 APPLICANT & COUNTERCLAIM RESPONDENT SM RESPONDENT & COUNTERCLAIM APPLICANT KK APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: KK is to pay J Ltd the sum of $10,287.80 within 28 days of the date of this order. The counterclaim by KK is dismissed. Reasons