Search Results

1. UD v CE [2023] NZDT 73 (4 April 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...requirements of an exception to the driving rules for reversing? b. If not, is the amount claimed reasonable? Were the circumstances of the collision such that CE meets requirements of an exception to the driving rules for reversing? 4. The law of negligence requires us to have a duty of care to not cause damage to others’ property and if we do, we are liable to put the person’s damaged property back to the state it was in before the damage was caused. The Land Transport (Ro...

2. EI v AI JBH Ltd [2020] NZDT 1542 (15 January 2020) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...cost of repairs to EI’s car of $6,162.07 including uninsured losses of $400.00. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Did BI breach his duty of care? b) If so, what sum is BI liable to pay? Did BI breach his duty of care? 4. The tort of negligence applies when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Road users have a duty of care towards other road users, which includes compliance with the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1988 and the La...

3. HH v NC [2024] NZDT 53 (29 February 2024) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...of $2,858.19. There were no uninsured losses. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Who was responsible for the collision? b) What sum, if any, is NC liable to pay? Who was responsible for the collision? 4. The relevant law is the tort of negligence, which applies when someone breaches a duty of care to another person causing foreseeable damage. Drivers have a duty of care towards other drivers, which includes compliance with the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1988 and the...

4. KG v OAU [2022] NZDT 225 (29 November 2022) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...obligation to manage risks on the road. The Disputes Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine a dispute under CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 either of those causes of action. The Tribunal does have jurisdiction to determine a dispute based on negligence if the applicant has suffered damage to their property as a result. 6. The law of negligence provides that we owe a duty of care to ensure we do not cause a loss to someone else due to our conduct. 7. KG considered tha...

5. JC v KB [2019] NZDT 1387 (3 July 2019) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...formalise such a promise into a binding agreement. Mr B paid $910.00 towards the car losses on the basis of his promise, but once the relationship ended he changed his mind about making further payments. 7. As Ms C is not the owner of the damaged vehicle, she is unable to make a negligence claim against Mr B for the vehicle losses. His view that he is 65% liable for the losses in negligence can only be considered in the context of a claim in negligence by the owner of the car, so is n...

6. GN v MX B Ltd [2023] NZDT 286 (27 July 2023) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...when he required brain surgery is justified. Because the car was in the repair shop, it is a foreseeable consequence that the damaged party would require alternative transport. 17. Further an extra cost for around $700.00 for towage of the damaged vehicle is also foreseeable and justified. 18. For these reasons I find the claim by the applicant against MX is proved and MX is to pay B Ltd the sum of $20,493.59. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Referee: K Johnson...

7. TN v HD [2023] NZDT 468 (16 August 2023) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...of the pegs, Mr E used this incorrectly located part of the fence as a boundary marker when he carried out the work on (what he thought was) his own property. 21. HD denied removing any survey pegs. 22. My findings are: a. In the law of negligence, every person is responsible for his or her own actions. b. A person can only be liable for another person’s negligence in certain limited circumstances. c. It was Mr E’s responsibility to ascertain the legal boundaries befo...

8. Council v HL [2020] NZDT1493 (27 February 2020) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...APPLICANT [City] Council RESPONDENT HL The Tribunal hereby orders: HL is to pay [City] Council the sum of $5,976.93 within 28 days of the date of this order. Reasons: 1. In the early hours of 19 August 2018 HL was driving his vehicle on [Street] [City] when he lost control of his vehicle and hit a traffic light pole located at the [Street] intersection. The traffic light is owned by the applicant, [City] Council. 2. [City] Council claim the sum of $5,976....

9. BI v NX [2024] NZDT 310 (22 May 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...4. The issues I have to consider are: a. Did NX cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? b. If so, what is the appropriate remedy? Did NX cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? 5. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. 6. I find that NX failed to take reasonable care. This was accepted by NX, who accepted responsibility for the collision as she had been dis...

10. Sionepulu v Downer NZ Ltd & Police [2012] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 63 KB]

    ...afternoon of 2 July 2012 counsel for both defendants made strike out applications. Both applications were granted. In this decision we set out our reasons. 2 Background [2] On the morning of 14 March 2011 Ms Sionepulu was the driver of a vehicle travelling in a southerly direction over the Auckland Harbour Bridge towards the city. On her account, she was in a middle lane when she observed that in the lane on her right hand side a vehicle travelling in the same direction had br...