Search Results

1. EO v UL LTD 2016 NZDT 979 (17 November 2016) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...when he struck an object sitting in his lane. The object turned out to be a grey metal digger bucket. [2] The bucket was the property of UL Ltd. EO contends that UL Ltd’s driver was negligent in not securing his load that morning and that his negligence has resulted in damage to EO’s car and associated losses to the value of $8500.00. [3] Mr A for UL Ltd contends that the digger bucket was stolen from its trailer outside a construction site the weekend before the incident on...

2. QD Ltd v SI [2023] NZDT 559 (17 November 2023) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...before and during his reversing manoeuvre? b. Is the quantum of $4543.05 claimed by QD Ltd, and its insurer reasonable? Did SI check the space behind him was clear before and during his reversing manoeuvre? 3. The relevant law is the law of negligence relating to damage to property. A finding of negligence requires that there is a duty of care, a breach of that duty, and damage as a direct result of that breach. All drivers have a duty to take care not to damage other vehicles or...

3. BU v SI Ltd [2015] NZDT 1460 (10 September 2015) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...for the collision due to a lack of care while driving? c) What sum, if any, is SI Ltd liable to pay? Was ZN responsible for the collision due to failing to ensure that the torque was correct? Page 2 of 3 5. 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 road users, which includes proper maintenance of the vehicle and ensuring it is roadworthy. If...

4. [2019] NZCAA 1 (18 January 2019) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...appeal on the papers under s 258 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996. Taking that approach leaves a risk that the parties may not have been heard adequately, particularly where only one party is represented by a lawyer. [2] The appeal relates to a vehicle being a Nissan NV200 Vanette 2012 (the vehicle). It was imported into New Zealand and seized on 14 March 2017 on the basis that under s 225(1)(n) of the Customs and Excise Act 1996 (the Act) it was a good that had “been unlawful...

5. MVDT Annual Report 2009-2010 (Auckland) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ANNUAL REPORT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL AUCKLAND Period 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010 Dear Minister Pursuant to section 87 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 (‘the Act”) I am pleased to submit the following Annual Report summarising the applications I have dealt with during the year, detailing cases which, in my opinion, require special mention and making recommendations for amendments to the Act. As you will see from the following summary, the Auckland Trib...

6. N Ltd v TC [2019] NZDT 1364 (25 September 2019) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...3. N Ltd and R Insurance Ltd claim $15,000.00 for losses resulting from the collision. 4. The issues to determine are: • Did Ms C breach her duty of care to Mr X by failing to give way when turning right? • Was there any contributory negligence on the part of Mr X? • What are the reasonable losses resulting from the collision and what amount is Ms C liable to pay? Did Ms C breach her duty of care to Mr X by failing to give way when turning right? 5. Ms C was turn...

7. OI v NJ [2022] NZDT 180 (15 September 2022) [pdf, 124 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 180 APPLICANT OI RESPONDENT NJ APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) JBH Ltd The Tribunal orders: The name of the applicant is amended to OI. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. OI claims he was parked on the side of the road outside NJ’s house. His engine was running but he was con

8. DF v FX [2023] NZDT 673 (31 October 2023) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...sunstrike and that DF’ car was illegally parked therefore she is not completely to blame for the collision. 3. For FX to be held liable for the costs to repair DF’ vehicle, it must first be proven that FX was negligent. 4. A finding of negligence requires a duty of care, a breach of that duty and damage as a direct result of that breach. All drivers owe a duty of care to all other road users and adjacent property owners. 5. FX came around the corner and was blinded by the...

9. ZM v TU & D Ltd [2024] NZDT 222 (21 March 2024) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...cause of the collision? c. If so, is the company vicariously liable? d. If so, what is the reasonable cost to restore ZM’s car back to the position it was in prior to the collision, and what, if any, sum should be deducted for any contributory negligence by ZM? e. Is the company entitled to compensation for lost earnings while attending the hearing? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 Was TU responsible for the collision? 6. The law of negligence applies. Drivers must t...

10. KB v MY [2019] NZDT 1390 (29 May 2019) [pdf, 230 KB]

    ...partially or fully in Mr Y’s favour. 6. The issues to determine are: • Was Mr Y moving from a stationary position at the left-hand side of the road or was he stationary in the flush median at the point of impact? • What is the liability in negligence of each driver? • What reasonable losses were suffered by each driver? Was Mr Y moving right from a stationary position at the left-hand side of the road or was he stationary in the flush median at the point of impact?...