Search Results

1. KQ & LT v SG [2023] NZDT 287 (13 June 2023) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...reasonable care? b. Was SG entitled to paint the street frontage of the fence? c. Are KQ and LT entitled to $6,887.65 as claimed, or to any other sum Did damage to the fence result from SG’s failure to take reasonable care? 7. The law of negligence requires that parties who owe a duty of care to each other take reasonable care to ensure they do not cause damage to the property of another or cause another person to suffer loss. Drivers of vehicles are included under this umbrella...

2. LCRO 18/2023 DS v GX (30 May 2024) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...she had suffered significant financial loss as a consequence of Ms GX failing to diligently progress Ms DS’s case. [37] Ms DS’s claim for compensation, as explained by her in her review application, is not capable of resolution through the vehicle of a professional conduct inquiry. [38] Her claim is more appropriately advanced in a claim in negligence. [39] Negligence is a cause of action that is well-understood by traditional civil courts. Its ingredients include a duty of car...

3. JD v SL [2023] NZDT 364 (20 July 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...8. The issues I have to consider are: a. Did SL cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? b. If so, what is the appropriate remedy? Did SL cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? 9. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 10. I find that SL failed to take reasonable care. I say that because he hit two stationary cars that...

4. DN v TQ [2021] NZDT 1632 (4 October 2021) [pdf, 213 KB]

   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

5. IX v HG [2022] NZDT 224 (23 November 2022) [pdf, 91 KB]

   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

6. QE v TA [2023] NZDT 791 (22 December 2023) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...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...

7. TG v E Ltd [2024] NZDT 647 (31 October 2024) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...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...

8. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 WML evidence chief Mark Apeldoorn [pdf, 3.3 MB]

   ...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...

9. Hearn v Parklane Investments Limited [pdf, 178 KB]

   ............................................................................................................... 36 The consent application ................................................................................................................................ 37 Negligent Inspections .................................................................................................................................... 37 Ground inspection.......................................................

10. KV v FT [2023] NZDT 481 (23 August 2023) [pdf, 182 KB]

    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