Search Results

1. BX and ABC Ltd v YC [2014] NZDT 602 (3 March 2014) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...thereby causing considerable damage to it and BX’s clothing. The motorbike was written off. The total loss suffered by BX exceeds $15,000.00 and he reduces his claim to that amount to remain within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. Law [2] Law of Negligence and Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 Issue [3] Whether one or both of the drivers failed to take reasonable care not to cause foreseeable damage or injury to another person or its property. Findings [4] YC claims that hi...

2. BX & JD v ML [2022] NZDT 283 (30 December 2022) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...site was dug up. A very limited amount of remains, including an ear, were found. ML said he had distributed the meat between his friends and fed the rest to dogs. 9. JD and NX have filed a $10,000.00 claim against ML for the loss of their vehicle. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 10. ML disputes liability on the basis that the cattle beast was not registered to him and therefore he has no responsibility for any damages incurred to JD’s vehicle. 11. ML did not ha...

3. TI v OG Ltd [2022] NZDT 107 (5 September 2022) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...and thereby creating a significant hazard for other road users, then the duty of care on the truck drivers (and logging truck companies) extends beyond keeping as far left as practicable and it requires them to take other steps, such as using pilot vehicles. 12. TI lives on this road. At the hearing he talked about close-call incidents that he has experienced, and about the experiences and concerns of his neighbours. Those concerns are genuine and reasonable. This dispute raises broa...

4. JN & TN v CI [2023] NZDT 492 (5 October 2023) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...from W Ltd attended the hearing by teleconference, as did CI and his mother, ML, as his support person. 2. On 11 June 2022 JN and CI were involved in a collision at [Road 1], [City]. 3. JN and TN claim $20,726.62 for the cost of repairing their [vehicle]. 4. CI disputed who was at fault for the collision. Did CI cause the collision and damage to the [vehicle]? 5. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a way that causes damage to other...

5. KB v TG [2024] NZDT 800 (28 November 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...of $456.51, and less the sale price of the wreck of $2,075.00. 4. TG counterclaimed for $17,955.00, being $17,555.22 for repairs and towing of $400.00, for damage to his vehicle. Who caused the collision? 5. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a way that causes damage to other vehicles or property. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (“LTR”) explains the rules that apply to all drivers. 6. Rule 2.1 of the LTR provides tha...

6. IN v XI [2023] NZDT 780 (19 December 2023) [pdf, 94 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 780 APPLICANT IN RESPONDENT XI APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) X Ltd The Tribunal orders: XI to pay X Ltd $3,962.44 by 10 February 2024. Reasons: 1. IN claims that on the 21 January 2023 XI was driving a vehicle [registration number] which collided with the rear of her vehicle twice as she was slowing down for traf...

7. EJ v BC [2020] NZDT 1431 [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...BC and MHI counter-claim $6080.00 being the total loss of BC's vehicle which was also uneconomic to repair. 4. The issues to determine are: • Did BC breach her duty of care to EJ as the driver turning right? • Was there contributory negligence on EJ's part, specifically due to his use of the flush median and his speed? • What were the parties' reasonable losses as a result of the collision? Did BC breach her duty of care to EJ as the driver turning right?...

8. EH v KN Ltd [2024] NZDT 753 (21 November 2024) [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...looked at whether the respondent has been negligent in the provisions of its services to the applicant. I am not persuaded it was. Nor am I persuaded the respondent’s actions contributed to the loss. To be considered a contributing factor a party’s negligence must be, in some way, causative of proven loss. [15] I accept the respondent’s employee placed the space saver on the front wheel rather than the rear when requested to so. The applicant may well have had good grounds for this...

9. FD v TN & N Ltd [2024] NZDT 30 (25 January 2024) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...the hospital, he was assessed, admitted and discharged two days later. 4. The applicant/J Ltd claim $4078.56, being the losses suffered as a result of FD’s car being uneconomic to repair. 5. The issues to be determined are: • Did TN’s negligence cause the collision with FD’s car? • If so, does the amount claimed represent the reasonable losses suffered? Did TN’s negligence cause the collision with FD’s car? 6. All drivers owe a duty of care to other road use...

10. GS v SHH & HSG [2015] NZDT 1045 (30 September 2015) [pdf, 105 KB]

    ...hearing going ahead. Issues [5] The issues to be determined are: a. When did the prior crash happen? When was SHH/HSG informed of the fuel spill? Did any delay by SHH/HSG in responding to the fuel spill cause Ms GS’s crash? b. If SHH/HSG was negligent, what sum is payable in damages? c. Did SGA Ltd cause further damage by negligent towing? d. If so, what sum is payable in damages by SGA Ltd? When did the prior crash happen? When was SHH/HSG informed of the fuel spill? Did...