Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. 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

4. QG v BE [2024] NZDT 96 (13 February 2024) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...c. Did QG allow BE to drive his vehicle? If so, should any liability be apportioned to him? d. What loss has QG suffered that he is entitled to be compensated for? Did BE cause damage to QG’s property? 4. The relevant law is the tort of negligence. All persons owe a duty to other persons not to damage their property. If a person breaches that duty and causes damage to another person’s property, then they must pay the cost of putting that person back into the position they woul...

5. UQD Ltd v KN [2020] NZDT 1415 (30 September 2020) [pdf, 225 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1415 APPLICANT UQD Ltd RESPONDENT KN RESPONDENT INSURER JB Ltd The Tribunal orders: KN is to pay the sum of $2172.40 to UQD Ltd on or before 14 October 2020. Reasons 1. On 25 February 2019 KN negligently caused damage to UQD Ltd’s 1994 Nissan Largo van (fitted out as a campervan) and driven b...

6. KE v TX [2022] NZDT 277 (2 December 2022) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 277 APPLICANT KE RESPONDENT TX The Tribunal orders: TX is to pay KE $12,100.00 within 30 days of the date of this order. Reasons: 1. In February 2022, KE listed his [vehicle] for sale on Trademe. During the auction, a bid meeting the reserve price of $120,000.00 was placed from TX’s Trademe account. No other bids were made on the auction, and when the auction closed, the bid from TX’s account won veh...

7. C Ltd & UC v BO [2024] NZDT 805 (19 September 2024) [pdf, 127 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 805 APPLICANT C Ltd APPLICANT UC RESPONDENT BO APPLICANT'S INSURER J Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. BO is to pay J Ltd $5,262.25 on or before 11 October 2024. 2. The counterclaim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 3 June 2022, UC was driving a [vehicle], owed by C Ltd, North along [Road], about five car lengths behin...

8. EC v UI [2023] NZDT 615 (23 November 2023) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...turn and while he was still stationary, UI drove out from the [Landmark] driveway heading north. He drove across the two south bound lanes and median into the north bound lane. As he was driving across the median the front right corner of UI’s [vehicle] collided with the rear bumper of EC’s [vehicle]. 2. EC and his insurance, X Insurance, claim $8,588.44 to repair EC’s car. All repair costs have been paid by X Insurance. 3. The issues that need to be decided are: a) Did UI...

9. DU & HU c/- V Trust v UT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1591 (28 July 2021) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...rather than excellent. 10. For these reasons, DU and HU are not entitled to a remedy from UT in relation to the damaged wall. Are DU and HU entitled to compensation for the cost of repairing the letterbox? 11. The relevant law is the law of negligence in tort (a tort being a civil wrong). Negligence concerns the duties that one person owes to another to take care. A property owner claiming that a driver negligently caused damage to his or her property has the onus of proving on...

10. TN v QS [2022] NZDT 92 (1 September 2022) [pdf, 184 KB]

    ...was clear? b. If QS breached his duty of care, what loss can TN prove she has incurred that she is entitled to be compensated for? Did QS breach his duty of care by crossing a cycle lane without ensuring the way was clear? 3. The law of negligence imposes a duty on everyone to ensure that we do not cause harm to another person due to our acts and omissions. Road users therefore must operate their vehicle so they do not cause damage to others. A lane is defined in the Land Tr...