Search Results

1. BORA Historic Places Amendment Bill [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...could be seen as ensuring that the Council is able to fulfil its functions and responsibilities for providing advice to the Trust under section 85 of the HP Act. 11. The HP Act is one of the key pieces of legislation through which the Crown provides protection for New Zealand heritage. The Act’s purpose, set out in section 4, is ‘to promote the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand’. Section 4 further prov...

2. LCRO 68/2017 GM v BN (6 July 2017) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...11 Email BN to GM (13 December 2016). 12 Email GM to BN (6 January 2016). 8 (d) On 27 January Mr BN requested confirmation from Mr GM that agreement had been reached between the parties concerning fire protection and maximum occupancy of the premises. If so, he also asked for confirmation that a new lease had been agreed between ABC Limited and the landlord. (e) Mr GM and Mr BN exchanged communications on 30 January in relation to the fire

3. LCRO 359/2013 SW v LM [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...361, [2016] NZAR 475 at [2]. 6 coming to his or her own view of the fairness of the substance and process of a Committee’s determination. Discussion Rule 13.8 [19] Before commencing a review of the material provided, it is necessary to carefully examine r 13.8 and 13.8.1, which Mr SW submits have been breached: 1. There must be an “attack on a person’s reputation”. 2. The “attack” must be made “without good cause”. 3. The attack must be made either:...

4. [2022] NZIACDT 1 - ZI v Wan (19 January 2022) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...on 27 June. [18] On 23 September 2019, Immigration NZ declined the residence application. It was not satisfied that the investment funds had been legally earned. The letter advised the complainant that she could appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) within 42 days of certain days. [19] Mr Wan then filed a guardian visitor visa application on behalf of the complainant on 28 January 2020. [20] Immigration NZ wrote to Mr Wan on 17 March 2020 raising certain issues...

5. HIJ v RST and UVW (Publication) [2013] NZHRRT 41 [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...the Act the Tribunal prohibited publication of the names of all the parties and of any details which might identify them. That order was made on the grounds that identification of the parties could lead to the identification of the children whose care was the subject of the proceedings in the Family Court. [4] Having now heard all the evidence we are of the view that the interim order should be made final not only because the identity of the children might be revealed but also becaus...

6. LCRO 170/2020 KLM Limited v ND (30 March 2021) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...ND’s 11 May 2017 letter “contain[ed] a threat or threats”, that was “not the intention”. He explained if a person, such as Mr OE, “purport[ed] to act as an expert” beyond the person’s areas of expertise, then without the statutory protection of an arbitrator, that person may be liable for doing so. [103] Mr ND says in the end the parties agreed to refer the disputes to arbitration which is “a consensual process” and was not “forced” on [KLM] as it claims. Con...

7. Khan v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 6 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...interest against Ms Khetarpal’s interests (A v Professional Conduct Committee at [82]). [45] 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. [46] Dishonesty points to the need to remove a practitioner from a pr...

8. J v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 7 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...interest against Ms Khetarpal’s interests (A v Professional Conduct Committee at [82]). [45] 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. [46] Dishonesty points to the need to remove a practitioner from a pr...

9. AN v DH LCRO 119/2015 (23 December 2015) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...decision, the Family Court’s comments that Ms AN’s “behaviour was out of character” and that the Court viewed “Ms AN’s withdrawal from the lawyer for Child panel as an unfortunate outcome”. [43] The Committee then focused on the consumer protection purposes of the Act saying: 8. Consumers of legal services need to be protected from behaviour which does not meet a lawyer’s professional obligations. Given there is an overriding professional duty to the court, the fact s...

10. SG v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 557 (5 July 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

    ...plans were incorrect. SG alleges [the Architect] and S Ltd are liable for the encroachment. This claim is against S Ltd only and SG claims $30,000.00. 2. The issues I must decide are: a. Was S Ltd’s work completed with reasonable skill and care? b. If not, did S Ltd refuse, neglect or fail to remediate any failures? c. If not, was the failure of a substantial character? d. Is the amount claimed reasonable, taking into account SG’s obligation to mitigate his loss?...