Search Results

1. W Ltd v NC [2022] NZDT 210 (24 November 2022) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...and NC were involved in a collision at [Address]. 2. J Ltd claims $18,203.62 for the cost of towing and repairing the vehicle W Ltd was driving. 3. All parties attended the hearing. Who caused the collision? 4. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a way that causes damage to other vehicles or property. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (“LTR”) explains the rules that apply to all drivers. 5. NC was towing a large, covered...

2. BT & FT v Council [2015] NZDT 1492 (30 September 2015) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 a) When did the prior crash happen? When was the Council/Transport informed of the fuel spill? Did any delay by the Council/Transport in responding to the fuel spill cause FT’s crash? b) If the Council/Transport was negligent, what sum is payable in damages? c) Did XQ Ltd cause further damage by negligent towing? d) If so, what sum is payable in damages by XQ Ltd? When did the prior crash happen? When was the Council/Transport informed of the fu...

3. BC v ME & PI [2024] NZDT 186 (14 March 2024) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...APPLICANT’S INSURER X Ltd The Tribunal orders: PI is to pay $7036.00 to X Ltd (being all insured losses) on or before 11 April 2024; and PI’s claim against ME is dismissed. Reasons 1. Three drivers were involved in two motor vehicle collisions outside [Location A] in March 2022. ME (driving a [Vehicle 1]) had turned right from a side driveway exiting [Location A]. There was a collision between her vehicle and PI’s vehicle (a [Vehicle 2]) which was travelling in th...

4. SC v NI [2017] NZDT 1675 (11 December 2017) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...care; (b) whether SC contributed to the collision occurring by failing to take sufficient care; (c) if NI is liable to pay the amount claimed by SC; and (d) if SC is liable to pay the amount claimed by NI. [4] The relevant law is the law of negligence and the Land Transport (Road User) Rule (Rules). Negligence concerns the duty that a person owes another to take care. A driver is negligent if they breach a duty they owe to another person and that person suffers a loss as a result....

5. NL v EU & TJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1589 (2 August 2021) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...attended the hearing. NL only has third-party insurance. He has notified his insurer about the claim against him, and the insurer has not asked to be a party to the proceedings. Which party caused the collision? 5. The relevant law is the law of negligence. Drivers must take care not to drive in a way that causes damage to other vehicles or property. The Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (“LTR”) explains the rules that apply to all drivers. 6. Rules 2.6 and 4.4(2) of t...

6. NQ v OS [2022] NZDT 109 (10 August 2022) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...from the floor, and flying across the road during the storm? (c) If so, did the breach of duty cause the damage to the vehicle and was it foreseeable? (d) What is the reasonable cost to repair the vehicle? Did OS owe a duty of care? 4. In a negligence claim four elements must be proven. The first is the duty of care. A duty of care arises when parties are in close proximity to each other and it is reasonably foreseeable that if a standard of reasonable care is not adhered to the...

7. QN & Ors v KN [2024] NZDT 29 (28 February 2024) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...Is QN entitled to $3,223.99 for the costs of repairing the car? 10. KN did not dispute that he drove negligently and is liable for the cost of repairs to the car. The dispute was over the amount payable to QN. 11. The purpose of damages in negligence is to put the person who suffered the damage back in the position they would have been in had the negligent act not occurred. Losses claimed must arise from the negligent act, they cannot be too remote and there is a duty on a claiman...

8. HM and X Ltd v TM [2021] NZDT 1638 (6 July 2021) [pdf, 201 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1638 APPLICANT HU RESPONDENT TM APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) X Ltd The Tribunal orders: TM is to pay X Ltd $2,237.56 within 28 days. Reasons [1] HU and his insurer, X Ltd, represented by QL, claim from TM the cost of repairing HU’s car, which was damaged in a collision with a car driven by TM o

9. DV v VE [2016] NZDT 970 (22 August 2016) [pdf, 22 KB]

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2016] NZDT 970 BETWEEN DV APPLICANT AND VE RESPONDENT Date of Order: 22 August 2016 Referee: Referee Perfect ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that VE is liable to pay the sum of $3,554.00 directly to DV on or before 12 September 2016. Facts [1] DV was riding her motor scooter in the bus lane (as allowed) on A St when a vehicle turned right across her path, moving through a gap...

10. DD v KI [2023] NZDT 42 (14 February 2023).pdf [pdf, 205 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 42 APPLICANT DD RESPONDENT KI RESPONDENT INSURER (if applicable) X Ltd The Tribunal orders: X Ltd is to pay DD $7,725.00 within 28 days. KI did not appear at the hearing. Reasons [1] DD claims from KI and KI’s insurer, X Ltd, represented by ON, compensation for the damage done to his, DD’s, car, which