Search Results

1. Wang v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 409) v Sweetingham [2017] NZREADT 29 [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...the proposed cycleway until after the complaint was made. Substantive decision [13] In making the finding of unsatisfactory conduct, the Committee found that Ms Wang breached 5.1 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules), which provides that “[a] licensee must exercise skill, care, competence, and diligence at all times when carrying out real estate agency work”. The Committee also found that Ms Wang breached r 6.4, which p...

2. LCRO 76/2013 OP v The Trust (21 July 2017) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...negotiations, knowing Ms LM had secured alternate employment. [14] Mr OP said that Ms LM had instructed him not to disclose that she had an offer of alternate employment. He said he was obliged to act in accordance with her instructions, and to protect information that was confidential to her. He denied any professional wrongdoing. [15] The Committee considered that Mr OP had two choices when Mr SJ asked if Ms LM had secured employment elsewhere. He should have either given an...

3. Vosper and Vopser Ltd v CAC 402 & Biddle [2016] NZREADT 60 [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...September 2015 (the substantive decision), in which the Committee found pursuant to s 72(d) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (“the Act”) that the appellants had breached provisions of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”) and had therefore engaged in unsatisfactory conduct (“the substantive decision”). The appellants also appealed against the Committee’s decision issued on 9 November 2015, in which each of the ap...

4. [2019] NZSAAA 1 (4 February 2019) [pdf, 417 KB]

   Decision No. [2019] NZSAAA 1 Reference No. SAA 2/18 IN THE MATTER of the Education Act 1989 and the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal against a decision of the Chief Executive, Ministry of Social Development BEFORE THE STUDENT ALLOWANCE APPEAL AUTHORITY Neil Cameron HEARING on the papers DECISION The appeal is upheld REASONS Overview [1] This is an appeal against the decision of the Secreta

5. Harland v ACC [2012] NZACA 6 [pdf, 408 KB]

   ...review decision dated 20 February 2003 (the review U"(J1:;lllJl~,,-::::;:::-~ which in turn was against the Corporation's decision made on 1 0 March 2003 (the de(;i~~v;""~ 2 to decline an application for backdated attendant care under s 80(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 (the application). [3] The impetus for the application to reinstate the appeal was my decision in Nee Harland v ACC [2012] NZACAA 2 in respect of the appeal filed under ACA No. 01/08,...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hart [2012] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...obedience to, institutions of that profession and that such was entirely lacking in Mr Hart. [14] In addressing Charge 4, Mr Collins submitted that the practitioner’s attitude “... to a distressed and vulnerable family was exploitative rather than protective and there was complete disregard for the Rules of Conduct and Client Care.” Mr Collins went on to refer to the “dismissive and superficial attitude to the intervention rule, the absence of any guidance or advice about f...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. Henton v REAA, Max House & Barfoot & Thompson Ltd [2013] NZREADT 18 [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...provisions which apply only to licensees. The duties relating to real estate agency work apply only to licensees. The cornerstone of the Act is therefore the definition of “real estate agency work”. That is because it determines whether the consumer protection provisions set up by the Act apply and whether an offence has been committed.” [Our emphasis] [27] The definition of real estate agency work set out at s 4 is the cornerstone of the Act. The definition serves as a gatew...

10. Self-represented litigants: an exploratory study of litigants in person in the New Zealand criminal & family jurisdictions [pdf, 1.2 MB]

    ...also in other jurisdictions. Without historical trend data we could not say whether this perception was true. Self-represented litigants in the Family Court were likely to be New Zealand European males with an average age of 37, appearing for care of children and domestic violence cases. They were more likely to be paid full-time employees, most earning more than $30,000 a year. These characteristics differed from those found in the family jurisdiction internationally. Why ar...