Search Results

1. [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...

2. IPT Annual Report 2024 [pdf, 484 KB]

   Immigration and Protection Tribunal Annual Report 2023/24 Judge Martin Treadwell Chair 18 December 2024 2 Introduction The Immigration and Protection Tribunal was established under section 217 of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act). Section 224A of the Act requires the Chair of the Tribunal to provide an annual report to the Minister of Justice, the...

3. NQE v Tan [2013] NZIACDT 46 (01 August 2013) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...neither insight, nor a determination to rehabilitate herself. [46] I am accordingly satisfied alternative disciplinary sanctions would not be sufficient to cause Ms Tan to accept and maintain professional standards. The public will only be adequately protected, and the objectives of the Act achieved, by cancelling her licence. [47] I have considered whether allowing Ms Tan to hold a provisional licence, after establishing a regime of appropriate supervision, is an option. I am satisfi...

4. Wiezoreck v McHugh [2013] NZIACDT 49 (9 August 2013) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...the Tribunal is required to weigh the public interest against Ms McHugh’s interests. [38] When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty that, short of exclusion from a profession, a person will not reoffend. This Tribunal must carefully weigh the circumstances. It is appropriate to place an element of considered trust in a practitioner who has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [39] A significant factor in this case is that it involves dishonesty....

5. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Gardner [2017] NZLCDT 17 [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...is nothing inherently wrong with the trust model but argued that the trust wasn’t drafted correctly. First it did not achieve the aim of the instructions in that it was not fixed. Secondly, there ought to have been a record put in place to protect B and J such as a life interest and as well their being nominated as discretionary beneficiaries. He submitted the drafting errors were serious because it alienated the property away from B and J. Such a serious drafting error theref...

6. CAC20004 v Whisker [2015] NZREADT 61 [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...still operating as a real estate agent. [25] Mr Harding continued that by November 2012 Mr Polglase had only been paid $4,378.16 when he should have received $6,378.16; so that Mr Harding passed his concerns on to the Authority. [26] Mr Harding was carefully cross-examined by Mr Bigio. It was put to him that the defendant would say that his decision to close the business followed the defendant’s discussion and advice received from Mr Harding about the likely chances of the proposed...

7. LCRO 243/2016 KE v HO (21 June 2019) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...Mrs KE had raised, unbeknown to Mr HO, in the report. [23] On 24 July 2015, Ms YS swore the second affidavit and annexed the report as an exhibit. [24] I interpolate again: faced with a choice over whether to produce a copy of the report to protect Ms YS/Ms CB’s position in the litigation, or to protect her own interests by maintaining its confidentiality, Mrs KE preferred her clients’ interests over her own and annexed the report. Either way, the report was not annexed as...

8. LCRO 235/2017 B and A LT v HF (28 March 2019) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...which allows a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) to conduct the review on the basis of all information available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [26] I record that having carefully read the complaint, the response to the complaint, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the application for review, there are no additional issues or questions in my mind that nece...

9. EC & ECE v UX Ltd [2016] NZDT 895 (12 February 2016) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...tiles and staining to the supposedly stain-resistant grouting. [5] The relevant law is the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (‘CGA’), specifically section 28 of the CGA which provides a guarantee that services will be carried out with reasonable care and skill. Issues [6] The issues to determine are: A. Were both scratches caused by UX Ltd? B. Does scratching the shower drain constitute a failure of reasonable care and skill on the part of UX Ltd? C. Aside from t...

10. LN v TD Ltd [2020] NZDT 1466 (13 March 2020) [pdf, 193 KB]

    ...furniture. Therefore LN is entitled to a refund of the purchase price. Was LN entitled to dispose of the sofa bed? 6. When a party has possession of goods belonging to another, even involuntary possession, they have a duty to take reasonable care of the goods. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 7. LN organised for the sofa bed to be donated to the Salvation Army. Although her house guest did ask TD Ltd to collect the sofa bed the day after it was delivered, this was in the c...