Ministry of Justice

Search Results

1. INZ (Greathead) v Ortiz [2019] NZIACDT 59 (29 August 2019) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...client asking him to write a letter stating he had worked at the salon voluntarily. He did not, so she kept ringing him and sending texts urging him to send the letter. The client told Immigration New Zealand’s investigator that Ms Ortiz was careful not to mention in any of her texts what the letter was in relation to. The client then stopped communicating with her. [24] On 27 November 2015, Ms Ortiz replied by email to Immigration New Zealand’s second letter advising that sh...

2. Barfoot & Thompson v CAC 20003 [2014] NZREADT 48 [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...[3] The Committee’s concern was that Barfoot & Thompson’s in-house policy failed to ensure that it and its salespersons met their obligations to vendor clients under the 2 Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2009, particularly rules 6.1 and 9.1. In particular, the Committee was concerned that Barfoot & Thompson does not require an employee interested in purchasing a property to negotiate through the listing salesperson, or if the int...

3. CAC 409 v Brady [2019] NZREADT 21 (23 May 2019) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...The charge [6] The Committee alleged that Mr Brady’s conduct constituted seriously incompetent or seriously negligent real estate agency work, in that he breached rr 5.1 and 9.1 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012, by advising Mr Derrick to delete clause 20, without verifying any of the information given to him by Mr Derrick, as to the year the building work was done, or discussing the matter with Mr Derrick’s solicitor. [7] The Com...

4. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Sensible Sentencing Group Trust (Application for Interim Non-Publication Orders) [2013] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...Commissioner of Police in relation to the Privacy Act complaint made against the Commissioner. [21] Mr Judd submits that the conclusions reached by the Privacy Commissioner after a detailed investigation of the facts and after hearing the SSGT represent a careful and responsible analysis of the facts and that for the purpose of the interim order application those conclusions establish, at the very least, a strong arguable case that there has been a breach of Principles 6, 8 and 11 as all...

5. LCRO 20/2017 AP v RE (20 December 2018) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...other issues arise indirectly, for example, with regard to the scope and terms of a contract of retainer. This possibility was contemplated by the Court of Appeal in Erwood at [45]. Therefore, where such an issue could arise, a court should be careful to ensure that nothing it did in the course of a judicial proceeding should cut across the jurisdiction and powers of the Standards Committee. [72] Bell AJ said: [36] … The policy that the courts should not allow their proceedings to...

6. [2021] NZEnvC 034 Coneburn Preserve Holdings Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   ...drafting of policy 41.2.1.22; (c) Issue 3: the appropriateness of the additional homesites included in the Ch 41 structure plan; ( d) Issue 4: the Village Activity Area; and (e) Issue 5: the approach to the Peninsula Hill ONL/Peninsula Hill Landscape Protection Area overlay. [9] This decision is confined to Issues 2 and 3.9 [1 OJ As for the remaining issues: 8 9 10 (a) the appeal point for Issue 1 was withdrawn by Jacks Point; (b) Issue 4 remains live but is subject to the prop...

7. Chee v Stareast Investment Ltd [2010] NZWHT Auckland 33 [pdf, 298 KB]

   ................................................................................. 23 WHAT IS THE REMEDIAL WORK REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE DEFECTS? .................................................................................................. 23 CAN DIRECTORS OF COMPANIES INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO SUBSEQUENT OWNERS? .................................... 25 RESPONSIBILITY OF MR HUNG ............................................................... 26 RESPONSIBILITY OF...

8. Aldridge & Ors as Trustees of the SL & KM Aldridge Family Trust v Boe [2012] NZWHT Auckland 27 [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...judgment, stated that I did not mention Mr Swarts return to the home (then occupied by the Boes) in 1999 to carry out the job of assisting with the erection of the pergola beams. [17] Mr Wright contends that: (i) Mr Swart had a general duty of care to remedy his faulty building work when coming back onto the building site to work on the pergola and (ii) his affixing of the pergola beams was defective and causative of damage. Mr Wright’s submission places reliance on John...

9. Kennedy v Scanner Investments Ltd [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...detailed in the estimates by Octa Associates (submitted as an appendix to Mr O’Connor’s report). 4.3 The claims against Scanner are in tort and based on allegations of negligence. The Owners say that Scanner owed them a non-delegable duty of care to ensure that all building work was carried out in compliance with the building regulations. They claim that it breached that duty by failing to carry out, or have carried out, the building work in a compliant manner. 4.4 The...

10. Livingstone v Animal Health Board — Lake Rotoaira Forest Lands (2009) 245 Aotea MB 124 (245 AOT 124) [pdf, 133 KB]

    ...aerial drop of the poison known as 1080 over various blocks of Māori freehold land in which he claims an interest as an owner. Mr Livingstone says that the use of 1080 will have a devastating effect on wildlife including important national and protected species. He further claims that the Animal Health Board and associated authorities have failed to notify, provide opportunity for discussion and secure the support of the trustees and owners of the affected lands. Mr Livingstone th...