Search Results

1. SFM Ltd v VI Ltd WJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1705 (7 September 2021) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...4. The issues to be decided are: a) Did VI owe a duty of care to SFM in transporting its load? b) If so, did VI fail in its duty to take care? c) If so, is VI liable to pay all or any of the costs claimed by SFM? 5. SFM’s claim is based in negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that one person owes another to take care. Negligence requires four elements to be proven: i) that a duty of care exists between the parties; ii) that there was a breach of that duty; iii) that the dam...

2. OB v BB [2023] NZDT 33 (7 February 2023) [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...driver first, then an adjournment for a formal lodging of BB’s costs if liability on the part of BH was proven. 6. The issues to be determined are: • Where were the cars positioned on the road when the impact occurred? • Is BB liable in negligence for causing the collision? • What are the reasonable costs suffered? Where were the cars positioned on the road when the impact occurred? 7. BH says that BB had indicated left and pulled into the kerb on the left and stopped...

3. LCRO 63/2021 FB v LK (31 May 2021) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...FB. Complaint [10] Against that background, on 18 February 2020, Mr FB lodged his complaint with the New Zealand Law Society Complaints Service (Complaints Service). That complaint against Mr LK may be summarised as follows: (a) Mr LK was negligent and/or incompetent in connection with the sale of a property. (b) Mr LK was negligent and/or incompetent, and failed to follow instructions, in connection with an interim payment to Mrs FB. (c) Mr LK’s advice about relationship p...

4. LCRO 94/2019 EL v UD (15 May 2020) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...had failed to alert the Council to a judgement issued by the [City B] High Court in October 2013 which had significant relevance for the Council’s task of determining relevant and appropriate standards for building safety; and (c) proof of negligence was established by errors that had been identified in the information considered by the Council; and (d) Mr UD had failed to observe that the introduction to the [Company B] report clearly identified the report as being in draft for...

5. People remanded on bail or at large and offending on bail or at large December 2018 [xlsx, 281 KB]

   ...definitions and data notes Back to contents page Example interpretation: There were some differences in the type of offence that was the most serious for each remand type. For 'at large' in 2017, half of people (49%) had a 'traffic and vehicle regulatory' offence (eg excess breath alcohol) as their most serious offence and 21% had an offence for 'dangerous or negligent act endangering persons' (eg careless driving). For 'bail', 26% of people in 2017 had...

6. People remanded on bail or at large and offending on bail or at large June 2019 [xlsx, 287 KB]

   ...serious for each remand type. For 'at large' in 2017/2018, half of people (49%) had a 'traffic and vehicle regulatory' offence (eg excess breath alcohol) as their most serious offence and 22% had an offence for 'dangerous or negligent act endangering persons' (eg careless driving). For 'bail', 25% of people in 2017/2018 had assault ('acts intended to cause injury') as their most serious offence; 16% had an 'offence against justice' (eg...

7. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Dangen [2019] NZLCDT 22 [pdf, 502 KB]

   ...Pyke for the Practitioner 2 RESERVED REASONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR PENALTY ORDERS MADE 6 AUGUST 2019 Introduction [1] This decision provides reasons for the penalty imposed on a practitioner who has admitted a single charge of negligence. The negligence, found to be so serious “as to tend to bring the profession into disrepute”1 was in connection with her conduct as a property manager and welfare guardian for an elderly woman suffering from dementia.2 [2]...

8. LA v KD [2023] NZDT 260 (8 June 2023) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...Are the costs claimed proved? Did KD’s driving cause the collision? 3. On the evidence available I am unable to make a finding that KD’s driving caused the collision and so the claim is dismissed. 4. The law that applies is the law of negligence. Drivers must take reasonable care in operating their vehicle and are responsible for any reasonably foreseeable damage suffered as a result of a failure to do so. 5. The duty to take reasonable care includes a duty to follow the...

9. BW v TC [2024] NZDT 511 (31 July 2024) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...care by passing BW in an intersection? (b) If so, what reasonably foreseeable loss can BW show he has incurred that his insurer is entitled to be compensated for? Did TC breach his duty of care by passing BW in an intersection? 4. The law of negligence imposes a duty on all road users to operate their vehicle so that they do not cause damage to others. The Road User Rules provide for the standard of care required of a reasonable driver. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004,...

10. QM v DH [2024] NZDT 497 (11 June 2024) [pdf, 176 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 497 APPLICANT QM RESPONDENT DH The Tribunal orders: DH is to pay $2886.50 to QM on or before 9 July 2024. Reasons 1. QM and DH were involved in a vehicle collision on [Street] in February 2024 at around 6.40pm in the evening. They were travelling in the same direction, with QM in the left lane and DH in the right lane in a queue o...