Search Results

1. KG v TM [2020] NZDT 1416 (12 August 2020) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...of $2995.75. 5. The issues to determine are: • Did KG cross the centre-line before turning left into the driveway? • Did TM pass KG's moving vehicle on the left? • Which driver has primary liability and is there any contributory negligence on the part of the other driver? • What were the reasonable losses suffered in the collision? Did KG cross the centre-line before turning left into the driveway? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 6. I find on the bal...

2. TX v CD [2024] NZDT 375 (5 June 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 375 APPLICANT TX RESPONDENT CD APPLICANT'S INSURER J Ltd The Tribunal orders: CD is to pay J Ltd the sum of $5,143.95 within 21 days. Reasons 1. On 21 August 2023 at about 8am (being a very busy time), the applicant was driving his motor vehicle along the T2 lane of [road 1]. 2. At that time, the respondent was in her motor...

3. TS & BS v KI [2023] NZDT 63 (16 February 2023) [pdf, 209 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 63 APPLICANT TS and BS RESPONDENT KI APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: KI is to pay the sum of $6037.01 to J Ltd, as insurers for TS and BS, by no later than 17 March 2023. The counterclaim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. BS was driving on [Street A] in the righ

4. ST v SC [2023] NZDT 86 (7 March 2023) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...repairs to ST’s vehicle $ 5,048.50 b. Reimbursement of Tribunal filing fee $ 180.00 c. Rounding $ 1.50 $ 5,230.00 3. The issues to be resolved are: a. Does clause 1 in the [Race] entry form preclude ST from pursuing a negligence claim against SC? b. If not, did SC fail in his duty to take reasonable care while racing? c. Is ST entitled to $5,230.00? Does clause 1 in the [Race] entry form preclude ST from pursuing a negligence claim against SC?...

5. LI Ltd v OZ [2022] NZDT 34 (30 March 2022) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 34 APPLICANT LI Ltd RESPONDENT OZ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On or about 1 July 2020 a vehicle driven by OZ suffered a blown tyre and left the road at [location], entered the rail corridor, travelled over the tracks, and collided with a residential fence. 2. LI Ltd (LI LTD) attended the scene and found the vehicle abandoned with...

6. CS v XI & XIX 2014 NZDT 798 (27 February 2014) [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...while driving? [3] On balance I find the First Respondent failed to take sufficient care while driving. I am not satisfied the Second Respondent failed to take sufficient care or contributed to the collision. [4] The relevant law is the law of negligence. Negligence concerns the duties that one person owes another to take care. If one person breaches a duty that he or she owes to another and causes damage to the other’s property as a result, then the person who has breached...

7. IO v XU & M Ltd [2024] NZDT 279 (5 March 2024) [pdf, 100 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 279 APPLICANT IO RESPONDENT XU SECOND RESPONDENT M Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The counter-claim is dismissed. Background 1. IO and XU were involved in an accident on [a beach] on 5 December 2023. 2. IO was driving [car 1]. XU was driving [car 2] that is owned by his employer M Ltd.

8. J Ltd v TQ [2024] NZDT 34 (15 February 2024) [pdf, 103 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 34 APPLICANT J Ltd RESPONDENT TQ The Tribunal orders: TQ is to pay the sum of $983.25 to J Ltd by no later than 8 March 2024. Reasons: 1. J Ltd claim a man, now known to be TQ, entered their premises on 8 November 2023 and purported to be interested in buying a car. When TQ asked to test drive [car 1], he presented a drivers lice

9. BD v J Ltd ES [2021] NZDT 1648 (24 June 2021) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...2. BD’s claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 29 June 2020 ES was driving towards Auckland on State Highway 16 in lane 4. He indicated to change lanes, and began to move towards lane 3, when he saw BD approaching on his motorbike been the vehicles in lanes 3 and 5. BD also saw ES move, so braked to avoid a collision. He lost control of the motorbike, which hit the left hand side of ES’s car, and fell, landing in front of the car. 2. BD claims the sum of $9,796.01 for the cost

10. AAL and AAM v ZZQ in his capacity as Trustee of BG Trust [2012] NZDT 3 (7 August 2012) [pdf, 49 KB]

    ...Trust for the damage to their car. Issue [2] The issue is whether BG Trust was negligent in allowing the bull to stray onto [a state highway]. Law [3] The relevant law is s 5 of the Animals Law Reform Act 1989, and the law of negligence. In determining whether the Trust was negligent, the Tribunal must look at the standard of care expected of a reasonable farmer in the Trust’s position; the common practice in the locality in relation to fencing; the taking of ot...