Search Results

1. ABZ and ACA Ltd v ZYE and ZYD Ltd [2013] NZDT 93 (25 March 2013) [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...directions. Issue [4] The issue for consideration is whether ABZ and her insurer, ACA Ltd, have a right to receive $1,307.26, assessed repair costs, for the first event. Law [5] The relevant law is the law of tort in the area of negligence. There is no dispute regarding liability for the first event; therefore, the road rules based on the Land Transport 1998 and the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 do not need to be considered. Decision [6] The Tribunal h...

2. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 WML reply Mark Appeldoorn final [pdf, 717 KB]

   ...within the keyhole area occur within the same “system”. They are subject to the interactive effects, restrictions and constraints that define that operating system. b. Therefore, while the specific measurement was of the travelling times of vehicles passing through the system, they are, by virtue of the frequency of recording, a reasonable indicator of the travel times, and change in travel times experienced by all vehicles in the system, including public transport. c....

3. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 WML reply Mark Appeldoorn tracked [pdf, 718 KB]

   ...within the keyhole area occur within the same “system”. They are subject to the interactive effects, restrictions and constraints that define that operating system. b. Therefore, while the specific measurement was of the travelling times of vehicles passing through the system, they are, by virtue of the frequency of recording, a reasonable indicator of the travel times, and change in travel times experienced by all vehicles in the system, including public transport. c....

4. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 WML rebuttal Mark Apeldoorn [pdf, 718 KB]

   ...within the keyhole area occur within the same “system”. They are subject to the interactive effects, restrictions and constraints that define that operating system. b. Therefore, while the specific measurement was of the travelling times of vehicles passing through the system, they are, by virtue of the frequency of recording, a reasonable indicator of the travel times, and change in travel times experienced by all vehicles in the system, including public transport. c....

5. PV v OS & B Ltd [2023] NZDT 172 (3 May 2023) [pdf, 105 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 172 APPLICANT PV RESPONDENT OS SECOND RESPONDENT B Ltd APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: OS and B Ltd is to pay J Ltd $3,922.28 by Wednesday 7 June 2023. Reasons Background 1. PV was in the left hand lane at a roundabout and OS was on the right lane at th

6. SFM Ltd v VI Ltd WJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1705 (7 September 2021) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...4. The issues to be decided are: a) Did VI owe a duty of care to SFM in transporting its load? b) If so, did VI fail in its duty to take care? c) If so, is VI liable to pay all or any of the costs claimed by SFM? 5. SFM’s claim is based in negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that one person owes another to take care. Negligence requires four elements to be proven: i) that a duty of care exists between the parties; ii) that there was a breach of that duty; iii) that the dam...

7. OB v BB [2023] NZDT 33 (7 February 2023) [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...driver first, then an adjournment for a formal lodging of BB’s costs if liability on the part of BH was proven. 6. The issues to be determined are: • Where were the cars positioned on the road when the impact occurred? • Is BB liable in negligence for causing the collision? • What are the reasonable costs suffered? Where were the cars positioned on the road when the impact occurred? 7. BH says that BB had indicated left and pulled into the kerb on the left and stopped...

8. LCRO 63/2021 FB v LK (31 May 2021) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...FB. Complaint [10] Against that background, on 18 February 2020, Mr FB lodged his complaint with the New Zealand Law Society Complaints Service (Complaints Service). That complaint against Mr LK may be summarised as follows: (a) Mr LK was negligent and/or incompetent in connection with the sale of a property. (b) Mr LK was negligent and/or incompetent, and failed to follow instructions, in connection with an interim payment to Mrs FB. (c) Mr LK’s advice about relationship p...

9. LCRO 94/2019 EL v UD (15 May 2020) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...had failed to alert the Council to a judgement issued by the [City B] High Court in October 2013 which had significant relevance for the Council’s task of determining relevant and appropriate standards for building safety; and (c) proof of negligence was established by errors that had been identified in the information considered by the Council; and (d) Mr UD had failed to observe that the introduction to the [Company B] report clearly identified the report as being in draft for...

10. People remanded on bail or at large and offending on bail or at large December 2018 [xlsx, 281 KB]

    ...definitions and data notes Back to contents page Example interpretation: There were some differences in the type of offence that was the most serious for each remand type. For 'at large' in 2017, half of people (49%) had a 'traffic and vehicle regulatory' offence (eg excess breath alcohol) as their most serious offence and 21% had an offence for 'dangerous or negligent act endangering persons' (eg careless driving). For 'bail', 26% of people in 2017 had...