842 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1632 APPLICANT DN RESPONDENT TQ The Tribunal orders: TQ is to pay DN the sum of $1,748.00 on or by 25 October 2021. Reasons 1. On 3 February 2021 DN and TQ’s cars collided. DN now brings a claim against TQ for the sum of $2,622.00. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Did TQ cause the collision? (b) If
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 224 APPLICANT IX RESPONDENT HG The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons 2. On 1 January 2021, HG damaged the panels on IX’s car. IX is now seeking compensation for the cost of repairing the car. She is also seeking compensation for damage incurred when HG filled up the car with diesel. 3. The
...the cost of repairs. The issue to be determined is whether the costs claimed are reasonable to put QE back in the position she would have been had the collision not occurred. 3. If a driver damages another person’s car as a result of their negligence, they must pay the reasonable cost of putting the other person back in the position they would have been had the damage not occurred. 4. TA reversed into the driver’s side of QE’s car, causing some damage to both doors on that...
...maintain the road network in the [region]. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Did E Ltd breach a duty of care to road users? b) If so, what sum is payable in compensation to TG? Did E Ltd breach a duty of care to road users? 4. The tort of negligence applies when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. E Ltd acknowledged that it owed a duty of care to motorists but denied that it breached its duty of care. 5. E Ltd’s investigation of th...
...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...
............................................................................................................... 36 The consent application ................................................................................................................................ 37 Negligent Inspections .................................................................................................................................... 37 Ground inspection.......................................................
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 481 APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT IN THE COUNTERCLAIM KV RESPONDENT FT APPLICANT IN THE COUNTERCLAIM LU APPLICANT IN THE COUNTERCLAIM’S INSURER X Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. FT is to pay KV $2000.00 on or before 5pm on 23 September 2023. 2. The counterclaim is dismissed. Reasons
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 283 APPLICANT QH Ltd RESPONDENT BD APPLICANT'S INSURER J Ltd The Tribunal orders: BD is to pay J Ltd $17,402.66 on or before 18 March 2024. Reasons 1. BD crashed into the large cantilever gate at the entrance to the QH Ltd premises. 2. QH Ltd and its insurer, J Ltd, claim $17,402.66 as a contribut
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 809 APPLICANT Q Ltd RESPONDENT AH The Tribunal orders: AH is to pay Q Ltd the sum of $30,000.00 immediately. Reasons 1. This is a claim for damage to the [motorway] (“the motorway”) to the value of $30,000.00. 2. The respondent did not attend the hearing. I am satisfied that the respondent received notice of the hearing an
...liquidation) to inspect and advise it concerning defects at 93A Kelburn Parade. An initial visual investigation by Joyce Group Ltd was followed by a further investigation and a Supplementary Report dated August 2002, listing faults attributed to negligent workmanship. A comprehensive summary of defects found during the course of the remedial work was set out at [1.12] of “Report on Building Defects at 93A Kelburn Parade for Body Corporate 081738” written by the Joyce Group, A...