DG v YT Ltd [2014] NZDT 566 (19 May 2014) [pdf, 157 KB]
...have gone out at lunchtime at all had she elected to travel with a supervisor, as there was none to go with her in that context. In that sense, had she had a supervisor with her, she would not have suffered the loss at all. However, the Court of Appeal has determined that this simplistic “but/for” test cannot be used to establish contribution, as it would deny the application of s11 in too many cases (NZ Insurance Co Ltd v Harris [1990] 1 NZLR 10 (CA)). b. YT points out that...