Search Results

1. EQ & MC v IJ Ltd & SD [2022] NZDT 146 (31 August 2022) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...Gary Spence [2017] NZHC 398. Negligent misstatement 3. In relation to EQ and MC’s alternative cause of action, negligent misstatement, the Disputes Tribunal does not have jurisdiction for claims relating to negligent misstatement. 4. Negligence (which includes negligent misstatement) is a tort. Under s10(1)(c) the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 the Disputes Tribunal’s tort jurisdiction is limited to a claim in respect of: a. the destruction or loss of any property; b. an...

2. Johnson v Canterbury/Westland Standards Committee 3 - Outcome of appeal of decisions [2018] NZLCDT 5 and [2018] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 439 KB]

   ...Charge 1 43 No duty to give advice as to trustees’ duties 46 Preferring expert evidence of Mr Eades to that of Mr Haynes 50 Failure to follow Bartle 51 Rule 3 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules 60 Finding that Mr Johnson was guilty of high end negligence 63 Appeal on Charges 2 and 3 72 Scope of appeal on Charges 2 and 3 78 What constitutes misconduct? 79 Appeal against penalty 88 Result 101 Introduction [1] Ronald Bruce Johnson has appealed two deci...

3. UD v TT [2025] NZDT 5 (9 April 2025) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...it is most likely that TT’s driving was a cause of the collision because she had an obligation to give way to cars already on [street] as she exited her driveway, and she failed to give way to UD’s car. 4. The law that applies is the law of negligence, which provides that every driver has a duty to drive with reasonable care and skill so as to avoid causing damage to other road users. The duty to drive with reasonable care and skill includes an obligation to follow the rules in the...

4. MOJ0058 Disputes Tribunal booklet JAN23 [pdf, 428 KB]

   ...tenancies (disputes between landlords and tenants) • body corporate issues in an apartment block (unit title development) • employment contracts • family law issues, such as relationship property and care of children • tort claims (e.g., negligence, nuisance, trespass, conversion) where there is no damage to property, but just an economic loss • entitlements under a will • rates, taxes, social welfare benefits or ACC payments • trade secrets or intellectual proper...

5. MOJ0058_Disputes-Tribunal-booklet_JUN24_WEB.pdf [pdf, 438 KB]

   ...tenancies (disputes between landlords and tenants) • body corporate issues in an apartment block (unit title development) • employment contracts • family law issues, such as relationship property and care of children • tort claims (e.g., negligence, nuisance, trespass, conversion) where there is no damage to property, but just an economic loss • entitlements under a will • rates, taxes, social welfare benefits or ACC payments • trade secrets or intellectual proper...

6. LCRO 21-2017 AJ v AK [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...A fixed-fee of $15,000 plus GST and disbursements was agreed between Mr AJ and Mr AK. 2 [5] A partial settlement was achieved at a Judicial Settlement Conference in June 2011. In particular, it was agreed that Mr AK would retain a motor vehicle valued at $3,000 and his former partner would retain one valued at $53,000 (the vehicles agreement). [6] Other issues required a defended hearing before a judge. [7] That hearing took place in mid-May 2012. On [date], the Court del...

7. AEJ Ltd v ZVM [2013] NZDT 304 (23 September 2013) [pdf, 56 KB]

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 304 BETWEEN AEJ Ltd APPLICANT AND AEK LTD APPLICANT’S INSURER AND ZVM RESPONDENT Date of Order: 23 September 2013 Referee: Referee Macpherson ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that ZVM is to pay to HY Insurance Ltd the sum of $7,523.01 by 5 pm on Friday, 4 October 2013. Facts [1] At 3 am on 1 September 2012, BQ was driving

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

   ...reasonable care? b. Was SG entitled to paint the street frontage of the fence? c. Are KQ and LT entitled to $6,887.65 as claimed, or to any other sum Did damage to the fence result from SG’s failure to take reasonable care? 7. The law of negligence requires that parties who owe a duty of care to each other take reasonable care to ensure they do not cause damage to the property of another or cause another person to suffer loss. Drivers of vehicles are included under this umbrella...

9. LCRO 18/2023 DS v GX (30 May 2024) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...she had suffered significant financial loss as a consequence of Ms GX failing to diligently progress Ms DS’s case. [37] Ms DS’s claim for compensation, as explained by her in her review application, is not capable of resolution through the vehicle of a professional conduct inquiry. [38] Her claim is more appropriately advanced in a claim in negligence. [39] Negligence is a cause of action that is well-understood by traditional civil courts. Its ingredients include a duty of car...

10. JD v SL [2023] NZDT 364 (20 July 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

    ...8. The issues I have to consider are: a. Did SL cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? b. If so, what is the appropriate remedy? Did SL cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? 9. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 10. I find that SL failed to take reasonable care. I say that because he hit two stationary cars that...