Search Results

1. TN v SH [2024] NZDT 569 (5 July 2024) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...$20,000.00 as claimed, or to any other sum? c. Did BN contribute in any way to the collision or damage, and if so, does that affect the right to claim loss? Did damage result from TH’s failure to take reasonable care? 7. Under the law of negligence, drivers of vehicles have a duty of care to other road users including to take care not to drive in a manner than causes damage to another vehicle. The Land Transport CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 (Road User) Rule 2004...

2. BU v CU [2023] NZDT 639 (22 November 2023) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...CU. The hearing took place by phone on 14 November 2023. Both parties participated in the hearing. NL represented B Ltd. 11. B Ltd seeks to hold CU liable for the damage on the grounds that he failed to give way to BU, and that therefore his negligence was the cause of the accident. 12. That would certainly be the case if BU’s description of the circumstances of the accident is proven. 13. The burden of proof is with B Ltd / BU. The standard of proof that applies in the Dis...

3. TT v JN [2024] NZDT 344 (15 May 2024) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...manner at the time of the collision? (b) If so, is JN liable to pay TT and/or J Ltd the amount claimed of $796.65? Did JN breach his duty of care to TT to drive in a reasonable and safe manner at the time of the collision? 3. The law of negligence provides that every road user owes other road users a duty of care to drive in a reasonable and safe manner. If the actions of one driver cause a collision then that driver can be said to have breached his or her duty of care to the...

4. RS v GT Limited [2019] NZDT 1398 (22 May 2019) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...hut at the exit lowered onto the roof of his car causing damage along its length. 2. RS claims the cost of repairs, being $1948.10, on the basis that the guard, an employee of GT Limited was negligent in manually lowering the barrier arm as his vehicle was passing. 3. GT Limited did not attend the hearing – I note that they were served via substituted service to their email address (above [redacted]) on 8 May 2019. 4. The issues to determine are: • Did GT Limited’s guard b...

5. IN & Ors v GU & J Ltd [2024] NZDT 719 (26 August 2024) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...lights. IN and her insurer say that GU caused the collision and seek an order that GU and/or his mechanic, J Ltd, pay them $7,161.58, which they say was the cost of the repairs to IN’s car. 2. The issues to be resolved are: a. Did GU, by his negligence, cause the collision? b. Did J Ltd, by its negligence, cause or contribute to the cause of the collision? c. Are the costs claimed proved? 3. I called GU three times for the hearing, but all my calls went to voicemail. The claim...

6. FL & UL v DB [2021] NZDT 1595 (19 July 2021) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...a reasonable and prudent driver. This standard can be determined by considering the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (LT Rule). Lack of compliance with this legislation may constitute a breach of a driver’s duty of care. As there were two vehicles involved, I also consider the Contributory Negligence Act 1947. Rule 4.4 states that a driver exiting a driveway must give way to a vehicle on a roadway, including a vehicle turning or about to turn right into the driveway. 8. DB propo...

7. ZY v BT [2023] NZDT 784 (13 December 2023) [pdf, 93 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 784 APPLICANT ZY RESPONDENT BT APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: BT to pay J Ltd $9,003.96 by 15 January 2024. Reasons. 1. On the12 January 2023 ZY’s vehicle [registration number] was traveling along [a road] in [city]. ZY stopped when traffic in front of him stopped because of a red...

8. OH v LT [2024] NZDT 298 (24 April 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 298 APPLICANT OH RESPONDENT LT APPLICANT'S INSURER U Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. All parties appeared at the hearing. Is the respondent liable for the collision of 7 December 2022? [2] The applicant claims that on the abov

9. LCRO 140/2021 TQ v RI (8 August 2022) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...2020 and the proceedings remain stayed as required by s 161 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. Mr TQ’s complaints [9] Mr TQ challenged the advice he received from Mr RI in the conduct of the litigation and asserts that Mr RI was negligent and incompetent. In his complaint, Mr TQ identifies a number of instances where he believes the advice provided by Mr RI was negligent and/or that Mr RI was incompetent. [10] For the purposes of this decision, there is no need to...

10. QH & TH v SR [2023] NZDT 696 (21 December 2023) [pdf, 177 KB]

    ...at the hearing. Is the respondent liable for the collision of 24 March 2023? [2] The applicant claims that on the above date his son was travelling along [Avenue A] in the right- hand lane travelling towards [Suburb A] when the respondent’s vehicle turn right across his lane after entering [Avenue A] from [Avenue B], intending to travel in the opposite direction towards [Suburb B]. The applicant claims the respondent is liable for the collision because he entered [Avenue A] from a...