Search Results

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

   ...His contact details were not available to the Tribunal albeit he had been served Notice of the Hearing to his last known physical address. The hearing proceeded in his absence as provided by the Disputes Tribunal Act 1986. 6. The law relevant is negligence and vicarious liability. 7. The issues to be determined are: (a) Did EN drive negligently and cause the collision while driving F Ltd’s van? (b) If yes, is F Ltd vicariously liable? (c) Did EN have a current drive...

2. 2024 NZPSPLA 074 decision redacted.pdf [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...body and made threats of Police involvement. MOP was concerned that WT was not licensed to undertake the work he was. [3] [redacted], the director of ML responded to the complaint confirming their repossession instructions with respect to the vehicle MOP had in her possession, allegedly unlawfully. He also provided evidence of the matter being referred to the Police. WT has advised that he spoke with MOP twice and that contact was minimal as she did not wish to engage with him. He de...

3. Evidence - Traffic - Minister for Children - Samantha McCarthy - Final [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...by the Residence and the potential traffic generated due to the proposed Designation change. The number of trips has been calculated based on a robust scenario of maximum employee numbers and shifts; the number and timing of visitors; servicing vehicle movements; and fleet vehicle trips. 1.5. I estimate that the additional trips generated by the Designation change will be up to 16 and 19 vehicles per hour during the morning and evening peak hours, and 62 and 54 vehicles per day d...

4. KG v TM [2025] NZDT 2 (22 January 2025) [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...and whether the repair cost is reasonable. Did KM hit TM’s cow because TM did not give sufficient warning of having two untethered cows on the road, and/or did KM contribute to hitting the cow by a failure in his duty? 4. Under the law of negligence duties are owed to not cause damage to property belonging to another person. Any person moving untethered animals on a road has a duty to other road users. Rule 11.14 (5) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule states – A person mov...

5. IW v CZ [2024] NZDT 498 (29 May 2024) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...before entering CZ’s lane. It was IW’s actions that caused CZ to lose control of her vehicle, even though his vehicle did not directly impact hers during the lane change, and that led to the resulting collision. CZ is therefore not liable in negligence for IW/KJ Ltd’s claimed losses and the claim is dismissed. Referee Perfect Date: 29 May 2024 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that som...

6. UD v CE [2023] NZDT 73 (4 April 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...requirements of an exception to the driving rules for reversing? b. If not, is the amount claimed reasonable? Were the circumstances of the collision such that CE meets requirements of an exception to the driving rules for reversing? 4. The law of negligence requires us to have a duty of care to not cause damage to others’ property and if we do, we are liable to put the person’s damaged property back to the state it was in before the damage was caused. The Land Transport (Ro...

7. EI v AI JBH Ltd [2020] NZDT 1542 (15 January 2020) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...cost of repairs to EI’s car of $6,162.07 including uninsured losses of $400.00. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Did BI breach his duty of care? b) If so, what sum is BI liable to pay? Did BI breach his duty of care? 4. The tort of negligence applies when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Road users have a duty of care towards other road users, which includes compliance with the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1988 and the La...

8. HH v NC [2024] NZDT 53 (29 February 2024) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...of $2,858.19. There were no uninsured losses. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Who was responsible for the collision? b) What sum, if any, is NC liable to pay? Who was responsible for the collision? 4. The relevant law is the tort of negligence, which applies when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Drivers have a duty of care towards other drivers, which includes compliance with the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1988 and the...

9. KG v OAU [2022] NZDT 225 (29 November 2022) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...obligation to manage risks on the road. The Disputes Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine a dispute under CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 either of those causes of action. The Tribunal does have jurisdiction to determine a dispute based on negligence if the applicant has suffered damage to their property as a result. 6. 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. 7. KG considered tha...

10. JC v KB [2019] NZDT 1387 (3 July 2019) [pdf, 152 KB]

    ...formalise such a promise into a binding agreement. Mr B paid $910.00 towards the car losses on the basis of his promise, but once the relationship ended he changed his mind about making further payments. 7. As Ms C is not the owner of the damaged vehicle, she is unable to make a negligence claim against Mr B for the vehicle losses. His view that he is 65% liable for the losses in negligence can only be considered in the context of a claim in negligence by the owner of the car, so is n...