Search Results

1. KQ & LT v SG [2023] NZDT 287 (13 June 2023) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...$4,405.65 on or before Friday 7 July 2023. Reasons: 1. KQ and LT own a home in [City]. SG previously occupied the adjoining property. KQ and LT say that in October 2021 SG damaged the brick boundary fence between the properties when reversing his vehicle out of his driveway. Despite expressing their concerns KQ and LT say SG then took it upon himself to make repairs. These repairs are described by KQ and LT as of poor quality and using materials not in keeping with the original bric...

2. KN v ID Inc [2021] NZDT 1527 (13 August 2021) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...a. Did the respondents owe a duty of care? b. Was that duty breached? c. If so, did the breach cause the damage and was it foreseeable? d. What is the reasonable cost of repairing the damage? Did the respondents owe a duty of care? 4. In a negligence claim four elements must be proven. The first is the duty of care. A duty of care arises when parties are in close proximity to each other and it is reasonably foreseeable that if a standard of reasonable care is not adhered to then th...

3. OS & KB Ltd v KS & NS [2023] NZDT 187 (18 April 2023) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...was instructing NS about using the brake and accelerator pedals at the time of the collision and had also taken responsibility for keeping a look out for other vehicles. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 6. The law that applies is the law of negligence. The law that applies is the law of negligence. Drivers of vehicles owe a duty to drive with reasonable care and are responsible for any reasonably foreseeable damage suffered as a result of a failure to do so. The duty to take reas...

4. NQ v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 598 (9 August 2024) [pdf, 178 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 598 APPLICANT NQ RESPONDENT T Ltd APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: NQ is to pay $1328.83 to T Ltd on or before 6 September 2024; and The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. NQ and T Ltd’s driver, Mr C, were involved in a minor motor vehicle collision while driving on the southern moto...

5. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 WML evidence chief Mark Apeldoorn [pdf, 3.3 MB]

   ...this is typical of how these activities are undertaken at other marina sites. In my assessment, loading and servicing is appropriately provided for within the proposal. Consequently, I consider the potential loading and servicing effects to be negligible. Access to and From the Marina Parking 20. Access to and from the marina parking area is to occur through a permitted vehicle area predominantly used by public transport servicing the Matiatia wharf activities. Marina p...

6. EC v ST [2024] NZDT 37 (23 February 2024) [pdf, 211 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 37 APPLICANT EC RESPONDENT ST APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) BC Limited The Tribunal orders: ST is to pay BC Limited $4,539.70 within 28 days of the date of this order. Reasons 1. The applicant, EC, was travelling north along [road 1] when the front of ST’s vehicle hit the right side of EC’s vehicle....

7. TX v B Ltd [2025] NZDT 117 (11 March 2025) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...applicable) X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. There was a collision involving three cars in [Street] in [City] on 11 March 2023. TX and his insurer, X Ltd, say that the collision was caused when a [vehicle] with the registration number [redacted] (the black car) overtook TX’s car. The black car did not stop after the collision. TX and his insurer say that the black car was owned by B Ltd at the time of the collision and seek an order that...

8. KQ v HDC Ltd [2022] NZDT 153 (28 September 2022) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...NZDT 153 APPLICANT KQ RESPONDENT HDC Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT HD The Tribunal orders: HDC Ltd and HD are to pay KQ $2,600.00 on or before 21 October 2022. Reasons 1. On 16 April 2022, at about 7.20pm, vehicles driven by KQ and HD collided at the intersection of [Street 1], [Street 2] and [Street 3] in [City A]. The vehicle driven by HD was owned by HDC Ltd. KQ suffered damage to his vehicle. Neither party was insured. KQ believed thar HD h...

9. Flows in the Justice System [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...ended Dec-12 Year ended Dec-16 Year ended Dec-17 Change in last year Change in last 5 years Homicide and related2 72 139 151 Acts intended to cause injury 15,644 15,352 14,864 -3% -5% Sexual assault 1,195 1,332 1,347 1% 13% Dangerous or negligent acts 8,049 7,239 7,327 1% -9% Abduction and harassment 2,255 3,010 2,843 -6% 26% Robbery 916 1,064 1,262 19% 38% Burglary 5,193 4,463 4,166 -7% -20% Theft 11,690 11,689 11,765 1% 1% Fraud and deception 2,952 3,139 3,032 -3% 3% Illic...

10. 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...