Search Results

1. Strickland v Gaensicke [2011] NZWHT Auckland 46 [pdf, 273 KB]

   .............................................................................................. 26 WAS SHINGLE AND SHAKE ROOFING LIMITED (SSRL) NEGLIGENT? . 29 WAS MR BURROWS NEGLIGENT WHEN INSPECTING THE PROPERTY AND ISSUING THE PRODUCER STATEMENT? ....................................... 30 DID ROGER FRANKS OWE THE CLAIMANTS A DUTY OF CARE? IF SO HAS HE BREACHED THAT DUTY OF CARE? ........................................... 34 DOES MR KARL GAENSICKE (KARL) OWE THE CLAIMANTS A DUTY OF C...

2. 02.-Evidence-of-Ms-Dianne-Rump-Muaupoko-Tribal-Authority64019775.1.PDF [PDF, 321 KB]

   ...representing Muaūpoko as a Te Tiriti o Waitangi partner and as the holder of Muaūpoko fisheries quota. Separate, and secondary, to that role, MTA is an Ō2NL Project Partner. And finally MTA is a submitter and section 274 party in order to protect our interests through the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) process and provide for our rangatiratanga in our own right. 5. As a Project Partner, MTA has worked closely with Waka Kotahi and Ngāti Raukawa ki te Tonga Hapū on the...

3. 2019 Directory of Official Information G-I [pdf, 916 KB]

   ...Security Act 2017 requires that the Minister responsible for the intelligence and security agencies issue Ministerial Policy Statements in relation to the lawful activities of the agencies. Functions and Responsibilities The GCSB’s mission is to protect and enhance New Zealand’s security and wellbeing. GCSB has two primary objectives - to deliver Impenetrable Infrastructure and Indispensable Intelligence. The GCSB has five core functions: • Intelligence collection and analysi...

4. LCRO 116/2019 RLF v DN (29 January 2020) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...actions as BG’s (successor) attorney [43] Mr LF repeats that as a bankrupt, JL was forbidden from acting as BG’s attorney. He says in such circumstances the Family Court conferred on him “the right to be consulted” about BG’s personal care and welfare. [44] Whilst he says he appreciates the Committee having declined jurisdiction to consider Mr DN’s role as BG’s property attorney, he says difficulty of access to the Family Court should be of concern to the Committee.10...

5. [2024] NZEnvC 226 Pirirakau Tribal Authority Incorporated v Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga [pdf, 323 KB]

   ...21 June 2022 Pirirākau lodges appeal against decision of HNZPT. The Statutory Framework [12] The purpose of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (HNZPTA), as set out in s 3 of the Act, is: 7 to promote the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand. [13] All persons performing functions and exercising powers under the Act must recognise the principles set out in s 4: (a) the principle that...

6. BORA Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill [pdf, 341 KB]

   ...provision aims to prevent the licence holder from acting in a manner which may be harmful to the public. 68. The Ministry of Health advises that the offence is also intended to encourage those responsible for medicines to meet a high standard of care. For the purposes of protecting public health and safety, a higher standard of care is required than absence of recklessness when dealing with scheduled medicines. It would not further the objective of the provision if the prosecution w...

7. BORA Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Social Housing Reform) Amendment Bill [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...powers are necessary to ensure that social housing continues to be allocated to those who most need it and to facilitate the proper allocation of housing amongst HNZ tenants, and although the Bill does not contain safeguards specifically directed at protecting the right to not be compelled to incriminate oneself, there are appropriate safeguards to protect individual privacy. 5. Finally we consider that that any apparent limit on s 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act raised by reverse onus...

8. LCRO 119/2018 QL v DW (22 October 2019) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...action on the complaint was necessary or appropriate. [17] In reaching that conclusion, the issue identified by the Committee for consideration was whether, as required by rule 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules), Mr DW acted for Mr QL “competently and consistently with [Mr DW's] duty to take reasonable care”. (1) Relationship property calculations [18] The Committee referred to Mr DW’s calculations on which he b...

9. RV v ZL LCRO 85/2012 (23 May 2016) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...appropriate for Mr ZL to act for both the vendor and the purchaser in a related party transaction, when the property was allegedly sold at a substantial loss and Mr ZL was aware of the original purchase price. (c) Whether Mr ZL breached any duty of care to Mr RV as a shareholder of [Company A]. [10] The Committee addressed each issue. Conflict of interests [11] The Committee noted that the issue was not so much one of a conflict of interests but whether Mr ZL potentially was in...

10. UF v OU LCRO 90 / 2011 (20 March 2013) [pdf, 118 KB]

    ...committee determination (23 March 2011). 6 Standing [15] UF advised that he was the director of CCS Lawyers Limited. He further advised that UG was an employee of that company and that as an employer, it was his role to assist and protect his employees. He contends that this extends to lodging a complaint against other lawyers such as OU who threaten his employees. [16] Regardless of his employment status, UF advised that UG had in any event asked him for help an...