Tort / Trespass to land / Applicant operated a wheel clamping and towing business / Applicant clamped a vehicle owned by Respondent in a private car park / Applicant alleged the clamp was removed and damaged by the Respondent / Whether the Applicant had the authority of the land occupier to operate a clamping business at their location / Whether the Respondent consented to accepting the risk of being clamped and being required to pay a fee to have the clamp removed / Whether the Respondent removed and damaged the clamp / Whether the Respondent entitled to claim debt collection fees / Whether costs claimed were reasonable / Held: Applicant did have the authority of the land owner to operate a clamping business on its behalf / Applicant was entitled to make this claim in its own right / Respondent accepted that park was a private park / Wilful blindness does not excuse Respondent from checking the conditions on parking on private land / Respondent accepted the risk of being clamped or to…
You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year. Identifying details have been removed.
Some decisions in this section have had minor editorial changes applied, that have no effect on the outcome.
5 items matching your search terms
-
RT Ltd v LC [2020] NZDT 1413 (27 July 2020) [PDF, 193 KB] -
KY v TU Ltd [2019] NZDT 1521 (23 May 2019) [PDF, 201 KB] Trespass to goods / Detention of goods / Applicant vehicle was clamped by Respondent / Applicant claims refund of $150 release fee as she was only parked and away from her vehicle briefly / Respondent claims vehicle clamped because it did not display visitor’s permit and it has authority to clamp or tow unauthorised vehicles at the site / Held: no damages suffered by landowner before Applicant returned to vehicle after around one minute / Reasonable to expect that a few minutes would be allowed to obtain permit or make enquiries about permit / Held: Respondent not entitled to clamp Applicant’s car / Claim allowed / Respondent order to refund $150 to Applicant.
-
BE v TU Ltd [2018] NZDT 1502 (6 December 2018) [PDF, 86 KB] Trespass to goods / Applicant visited Embassy and parked in neighbouring property’s exclusive parking space / Respondent clamped Applicant’s car / Applicant claims refund of $150 release fee and $45 filing fee / Respondent does not dispute it clamped Applicant’s car so trespass of goods established / Issue whether clear warning car could be clamped if parked in space in question / Held: signs did not provide sufficient warning whether visitors to Embassy could park there / Held: Respondent unable to establish defence to action / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to refund Applicant fee for clamping car / Filing fee cannot be recovered by Applicant per s 43 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988
-
AAE v ZZV [2012] NZDT 32 (18 May 2012) [PDF, 66 KB] Tort / Towing of vehicle / Applicant parked at a plaza and had dinner there / parking only for customers / remained parked after the plaza closed / returned to car and it had been towed by the Respondent (a towing company) / no signage at entrance and no sign in front or behind the row of parking spaces in which the Applicant parked / Applicant seeks refund of release fee / law of trespass to goods / clamping a person’s car is an act of trespass to that person’s property unless it can be shown that the owner has consent to, or willingly assumed, the risk of the car being clamped / same logic applies to towing / distress damage feasant only applies where a person or object trespasses on to land and causes damage / held that the Respondent committed a trespass against goods when it towed the Applicant / notices were insufficient for purposes of warning the Applicant he may be towed / Respondent not entitled to rely on distress damage feasant as there was no damage / Respondent ordered to…
-
AN v ZM Ltd [2012] NZDT 581 (20 January 2012) [PDF, 16 KB] Tort / trespass / distress damage feasant / Applicant parked her car on a site for a small errand elsewhere and found her car clamped by Respondent and was only released after payment of $250 charge / Applicant claimed for refund of the amount charged / Held: wheel clamp was not justified in the circumstances / not been provided with any evidence relating to authority of wheel clamping / even assuming authority existed, signs containing conditions were insufficient and obscured and not reasonably sighted by Applicant / doubt whether charge of $250 reasonable / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $250.