Search Results

1. SG v QN [2022] NZDT 253 (16 December 2023) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...to pay? Was the crash caused by a medical event? Was QN careless in any way? 3. The tort of negligence applies when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Drivers have a duty of care towards people who own vehicles or other property in the vicinity, to avoid causing damage to their property. 4. Generally, if a driver hits a parked car there is an inference that the driver failed to take care. However, if a medical event caused the driver to lose c...

2. IB v ED [2024] NZDT 95 (21 February 2024) [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...bumper bar $ 2,500.00 $ 7,788.00 3. The issues to be resolved are: a. What value will restore IB to the position he was in before ED disposed of the poles? b. Did ED fail to take reasonable care resulting in damage to IB’s vehicle? If so, what was the damage caused and what is a reasonable cost to repair that damage? c. Did IB’s own actions contribute to his loss of the poles and the alleged damage to his vehicle? d. Is ED entitled to any set-off for...

3. 2019 NZPSPLA 004185/2017 J Anstis [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...without prior approval? [4] Shortly prior to ceasing work for BDR Mr Anstis purchased a complete alarm kit and a camera system costing several hundred dollars for personal use on the company accounts. He also purchased petrol for his personal vehicle on a company fuel card. Mr Frost advises that standard company policy required prior approval and a purchase or stock order to be obtained for personal goods to be purchased on company accounts and Mr Anstis did neither. In addition, on...

4. TS v LN & DN [2024] NZDT 653 (21 August 2024) [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...DN were conducting renovations. TS claims $5395.80 compensation for fence remediation which he says represents half the total cost. He submits he did not need to follow the Fencing Act 1978 (“ the FA”) requirements as the damage was caused by negligence. 2. LN and DN deny the stormwater discharge from their property has caused damage to the fence and say that since TS has not followed the notice requirements under the FA, they are not required to make any contribution to the fence...

5. JY v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 64 (17 July 2023) [pdf, 189 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 64 APPLICANT JY RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. Both parties appeared at the hearing. Background [2] The applicant took his vehicle to the respondent for a warrant of fitness (WOF) inspection on 23 November 2022. T...

6. CL v NV [2024] NZDT 123 (31 January 2024) [pdf, 196 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 123 APPLICANT CL RESPONDENT NV APPLICANT'S INSURER K Ltd RESPONDENT'S INSURER B Ltd The Tribunal orders: NV is to pay directly to K Ltd the sum of $2,360.67 on or before Wednesday, 21 February 2024. K Ltd is to refund to CL $1,000, the insurance excess from the first monies received, or earlier at its discre

7. OQ v N Ltd [2023] NZDT 660 (24 November 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...OQ claims reimbursement of the replacement cost. 2. Both parties attended the hearings. Mr and Mrs B represented N Ltd at the first hearing, and Mr B at the second hearing. 3. The hearing was adjourned to enable the parties to provide a further vehicle assessment and for N Ltd to contact its insurer. 4. Before the vehicle could be taken for assessment, it was repossessed by the finance company as OQ could not afford repayments on the car as well as the cost of a replacement vehicle...

8. AL Ltd and ABC Ltd v ZO [2014] NZDT 627 (30 June 2014) [pdf, 21 KB]

   ...her brother. The animal belonged to friends of ZO’s and was one of five of their animals that had been in the paddock about 6 weeks. Law [3] The relevant law is s 5 of the Animals Law Reform Act 1989 which confirms that general principles of negligence apply. Under those general principles, a person in control of stock is required to take reasonable steps to prevent the stock from escaping and causing risk to passing motorists. Issues [4] The issues to determine are: • W...

9. 2023 NZPSPLA 038.pdf [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...Investigators Act 2010 (the Act) against STEPHEN SIGNAL DECISION [1] In June 2022 Craig Webb filed a complaint with police and the Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority (PSPLA) against Stephen Signal. He says that Mr Signal used company vehicles and fuel for non-work-related activities without authorisation and submitted false patrol reports and timesheets for payment. [2] I referred the complaint filed with the PSPLA to the Complaints Investigation and Prosecution U...

10. HM v B Ltd [2021] NZDT 1553 (3 August 2021) [pdf, 238 KB]

    ...(a) Did B Ltd owe HM a duty to take reasonable care to avoid the Trailer causing damage to the Ford? (b) If so, did B Ltd breach the duty it owed HM by not taking reasonable care with the Trailer (ie was B Ltd negligent) and, if so, did B Ltd’s negligence cause or contribute to the damage to the Ford? (c) If so, is HM entitled to a remedy and is the amount claimed proved and reasonable? Did B Ltd owe HM a duty to take reasonable care to avoid the Trailer causing damage to the F...