Search Results

1. 2021 NZPSPLA 032.pdf [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...made under s 74 of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010 AGAINST B M HEARD by telephone and audio-visual links on 6 October 2021 DECISION [1] Mr and Mrs D say that B M was guilty of misconduct or gross negligence when he repossessed an excavator from their property on 19 March 2021. They accept that Mr M had the required paperwork to carry out the repossession but say in doing so Mr M breached health and safety requirements, was rude and a...

2. TG v AM & PD Ltd [2023] NZDT 368 (24 July 2023) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 5. So, the issues to be determined are: a. Who was responsible for the collision? b. If AM was responsible, is PD Ltd vicariously liable? c. What if any reasonable costs associated with the damage to the vehicles ought to be paid and in what proportion? Who was responsible for the collision? 6. The relevant law is the tort of negligence, which applies when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Dri...

3. KG v TM [2020] NZDT 1416 (12 August 2020) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...of $2995.75. 5. The issues to determine are: • Did KG cross the centre-line before turning left into the driveway? • Did TM pass KG's moving vehicle on the left? • Which driver has primary liability and is there any contributory negligence on the part of the other driver? • What were the reasonable losses suffered in the collision? Did KG cross the centre-line before turning left into the driveway? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 6. I find on the bal...

4. TX v CD [2024] NZDT 375 (5 June 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 375 APPLICANT TX RESPONDENT CD APPLICANT'S INSURER J Ltd The Tribunal orders: CD is to pay J Ltd the sum of $5,143.95 within 21 days. Reasons 1. On 21 August 2023 at about 8am (being a very busy time), the applicant was driving his motor vehicle along the T2 lane of [road 1]. 2. At that time, the respondent was in her motor...

5. TS & BS v KI [2023] NZDT 63 (16 February 2023) [pdf, 209 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 63 APPLICANT TS and BS RESPONDENT KI APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: KI is to pay the sum of $6037.01 to J Ltd, as insurers for TS and BS, by no later than 17 March 2023. The counterclaim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. BS was driving on [Street A] in the righ

6. ST v SC [2023] NZDT 86 (7 March 2023) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...repairs to ST’s vehicle $ 5,048.50 b. Reimbursement of Tribunal filing fee $ 180.00 c. Rounding $ 1.50 $ 5,230.00 3. The issues to be resolved are: a. Does clause 1 in the [Race] entry form preclude ST from pursuing a negligence claim against SC? b. If not, did SC fail in his duty to take reasonable care while racing? c. Is ST entitled to $5,230.00? Does clause 1 in the [Race] entry form preclude ST from pursuing a negligence claim against SC?...

7. LI Ltd v OZ [2022] NZDT 34 (30 March 2022) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 34 APPLICANT LI Ltd RESPONDENT OZ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On or about 1 July 2020 a vehicle driven by OZ suffered a blown tyre and left the road at [location], entered the rail corridor, travelled over the tracks, and collided with a residential fence. 2. LI Ltd (LI LTD) attended the scene and found the vehicle abandoned with...

8. CS v XI & XIX 2014 NZDT 798 (27 February 2014) [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...while driving? [3] On balance I find the First Respondent failed to take sufficient care while driving. I am not satisfied the Second Respondent failed to take sufficient care or contributed to the collision. [4] The relevant law is the law of negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that one person owes another to take care. If one person breaches a duty that he or she owes to another and causes damage to the other’s property as a result, then the person who has breached...

9. IO v XU & M Ltd [2024] NZDT 279 (5 March 2024) [pdf, 100 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 279 APPLICANT IO RESPONDENT XU SECOND RESPONDENT M Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The counter-claim is dismissed. Background 1. IO and XU were involved in an accident on [a beach] on 5 December 2023. 2. IO was driving [car 1]. XU was driving [car 2] that is owned by his employer M Ltd.

10. J Ltd v TQ [2024] NZDT 34 (15 February 2024) [pdf, 103 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 34 APPLICANT J Ltd RESPONDENT TQ The Tribunal orders: TQ is to pay the sum of $983.25 to J Ltd by no later than 8 March 2024. Reasons: 1. J Ltd claim a man, now known to be TQ, entered their premises on 8 November 2023 and purported to be interested in buying a car. When TQ asked to test drive [car 1], he presented a drivers lice