842 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 738 APPLICANT EL RESPONDENT MN APPLICANT'S INSURER K Ltd The Tribunal orders: MN is to pay $8,615.04 to K Ltd on or before 5.00pm on 18 January 2024 Reasons 1. EL had driven through the traffic lights from [Road A] onto [Road B], [City] heading towards [suburb]. The two lanes on his side of the road
...duty of care as a driver turning right? 4. I find that EL breached the duty he owed as a driver turning right to give way to all traffic travelling straight ahead in the lanes across which he was turning. 5. The law that applies is the law of negligence. Drivers must take reasonable care in operating their vehicle and are responsible for any reasonably foreseeable damage suffered as a result of a failure to do so. 6. The duty to take reasonable care includes a duty to follow the...
...road when it should not have been? c. Is J Ltd estopped from pursuing the current claim against KC? d. Are the repair costs claimed reasonable? Did KC cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? 6. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to act in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. In other words, they must drive with reasonable care. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 7. Drivers must also abide by the applicable rules f...
...that, for example, invasive testing was not undertaken and that items that are concealed, contained, inaccessible or cannot be seen due to walls, ceilings, floor installations, soils, vegetation, furniture, stored items, systems, appliances, vehicles or any other object will not be inspected or included in the report. [26] The report records that it does not cover any buildings suffering from “rotting homes, leaky homes and toxic mould situations, areas that the inspector be...
...supportive of it; and (f) question as to whether there has been compliance with or a breach of a conduct rule, depends on the facts, circumstances and context of the particular situation under scrutiny; and (g) there was in the circumstances only a negligible, less than negligible or no risk that Mr MC could not discharge legal, professional and ethical obligations owed to Mrs QK; and (h) in substance the complaint was being advanced by Ms ZN; and (i) the issues raised by the co...
...that it is more likely than not that there was a collision in which the car driven by BH hit the back of TS’s car, and that this collision was caused by BH failing to stop his car safely behind TS’s car. 10. The law that applies is the law of negligence. Drivers must take reasonable care in operating their vehicle and are responsible for any reasonably foreseeable damage suffered as a result of a failure to do so. 11. The duty to take reasonable care includes a duty to follow...
...whether it would be unconscionable for the other party to take the benefit of the bargain.2 [8] AGQ produced evidence at the hearing to show that she had purchased her 1996 Mitsubishi RVR in January 2013 for $2,600.00. Given the age of the vehicle at the time of purchase it would seem likely that its value would not have materially changed in the few months between its purchase and the accident. The car’s purchase price appears reasonable on the balance of probabilities in...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1477 APPLICANT NL RESPONDENT KS Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT Council APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) B Ltd The Tribunal hereby orders: KS Ltd is to pay B Ltd $3,311.40 by Wednesday 16 September 2020. Reasons 1. A truck owned KS Ltd was being driven down [Road 1] in [Suburb] when it s
...and trading as a building company and known in the building industry as such • TQ was not a single project company • TQ was deliberately incorporated to create a separate legal entity that made it plain to all the world that this was the vehicle of all relevant business transactions Spouting and Steel Roofing World Ltd: fascia and spouting supplier and installer Spouting Steel did not participate at the hearing. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient evidence indicat...
...Bright has been charged by Complaints Assessment Committee 1904 (the Committee) with misconduct. The particulars of the charge are:1 1. On 3 July 2019, the complainant viewed the property (and one other property) with Mr Bright, travelling in his vehicle. 2. The complainant and Mr Bright were not acquainted prior to the viewing. 3. The complainant and Mr Bright were the only people present at the viewing. 4. During the viewing of the property, in the master bedroom, Mr Bright:...