Search Results

1. Tranent v Abingdon LCRO 47 / 2009 (22 May 2009) [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...on 31 March 2009. The review was conducted by a hearing in person on 13 May 2009 at which both parties were present. [3] The complaint has a number of aspects. They include that Mr Abingdon has acted inappropriately and in breach of a duty of care that it is argued he owes to Mr Tranent. It was argued that the duty was breached in the way Mr Abingdon has managed the relationship property issues. In particular Mr Tranent argues that Mr Abingdon has failed to facilitate the release...

2. MOJ0504-Making-a-parenting-plan-workbook-Simplified-Chinese.pdf [pdf, 3.2 MB]

   ...• 访问justice.govt.nz/family-violence • 访问areyouok.org.nz • 拨打免费电话0800 456 450， 致电“Are You OK”（“你好吗”） 如果您或您的孩子不安全，可以向家事法 庭申请保护令。如需更多信息： • 访问justice.govt.nz/protection-order-info • 免费拨打司法部电话 0800 224 733 https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/family-violence/ https://www.justice.govt.nz/family/family-violence/ways-you-can-stay-safe-from-family-violence/ 1...

3. BC and SO v SH [2012] NZIACDT 63 (28 September 2012) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...to convert German qualifications to their New Zealand equivalent created some confusion. [3] Ms BC and Mr SO complain that Ms SH failed to advise them adequately on this issue. [4] The question for the Tribunal is whether Ms SH was sufficiently careful and gave proper advice. The Complaint and the Response The complaint [5] Ms BC and Mr SO are life partners; they are German nationals, and live there. They wished to migrate to New Zealand and engaged EOA Ltd (the company) to assist...

4. LCRO 36/2022 EY obo SG v LW (25 July 2023) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...more than 20 years. [3] In April 2015, Mr SG appointed Mr LW together with his financial adviser, Mr VM, joint attorneys in relation to property.2 1 Mr EY was Mr SG’s attorney. 2 Mr VM was also Mr SG’s attorney in relation to personal care and welfare. 2 [4] In May 2017, Mr SG was assessed as lacking capacity to make decisions concerning his property and the power of attorney was activated.3 [5] In June 2017, [Law firm A]4 (Mr ZR) wrote to Mr LW advising that he had...

5. EH v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 423 (7 May 2024) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...combustion of the straw due to B Ltd having stowed it in a negligent manner. EH claims $29,995.00 from B Ltd in compensation being the maximum limit of the Disputes Tribunal. 4. The issues to be resolved are: a. Did B Ltd breach it’s duty of care to EH? Was B Ltd negligent in the way that it stored the straw and did this cause it to spontaneously combust? i. Did the straw spontaneously combust? ii. If so, was it foreseeable that the straw would spontaneously ignite? iii...

6. RK v LP LCRO 292 / 2011 (1 October 2012) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...position: a. This is a commercial matter; b. The Practitioner was entitled to take a position on behalf of his client; c. The Practitioner was at all times acting on the instructions of his client; d. The Practitioner does not owe any duty of care to the Applicant; e. The franchise agreement required the franchisee to grant a general release on the transfer of the business (in clause 18.11); f. The Applicant was separately advised; g. There was no undue pressure to sign the t...

7. Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 181 [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...287/01, 15 October 2002; (ii) The contended point of law must be “capable of bona fide and serious argument” to qualify for the grant of leave: eg. Impact Manufacturing (unreported), Doogue J, HC Wellington, AP 266/00, 6 July 2001; (iii) Care must be taken to avoid allowing issues of fact to be dressed up as questions of law; appeals on the former be proscribed: eg. Northland Co-operative Dairy Co Limited v Rapana [1999] 1 ERNZ 361, 363 (CA); (iv) Where an appeal is limi...

8. Canterbury / Westland Standards Committee 3 v Johnson [2018] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...is well known that the Disciplinary Tribunal’s penalty function does not have as its primary purpose punishment, although orders inevitably will have some such effect. The predominant purposes are to advance the public interest (which include “protection of the public”), to maintain professional standards, to impose sanctions on a practitioner for breach of his/her duties, and to provide scope for rehabilitation in appropriate cases.” [4] The process of assessing penalty begins...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Brill [2022] NZLCDT 13 (16 May 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...Wellington District Law Society [2011] NZLR 850. 3 [5] Having reached this point, we then stood back and considered whether the overall penalty to be imposed in this case met the purposes of the legislation. That is, was it sufficient to protect the public, maintain the reputation of the profession and uphold professional standards. Those are the primary purposes of disciplinary sanctions rather than any punitive purpose, although it is recognised that orders may well have a...

10. [2022] NZEnvC 203 Hadley v Waterfall Park Developments Limited [pdf, 203 KB]

    ...aware of QLDC’s position until 31 July 2020, thus considers it unfair that it pay for costs incurred prior to that date. [11] WPDL refutes the Hadleys’ submission that Bielby factors are present because the court would not have undertaken a careful legal analysis of the relevant objectives and policies to determine how the relevant rules were applied if this were the case. Moreover, WPDL submits thar Mr Meehan’s evidence reflects the ‘real world’ view that one purpose...