Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Aitken [2020] NZLCDT 13 [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...offending or of the practitioner, then, if appropriate, considers relevant authorities before making an assessment about a proportionate response. [17] The Tribunal must, in assessing penalty, be mindful of the purposes of the Act which are the protection of the public and the maintenance of confidence in the provision of legal services. [18] Penalty in professional discipline cases is not imposed for punitive purposes, although it is recognised that there can be punitive outcome...

2. L Ltd v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 86 (22 February 2024) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...the money wrongly. 3. The issues to be determined were as follows: a. Was B Ltd legally entitled to take the money from L Ltd in these circumstances, bearing in mind the terms of the contract between the parties, any allegations of a lack of care by L Ltd, or any harsh or unconscionable contractual terms, or behaviour on B Ltd’s part? b. What if anything is payable by B Ltd? Was B Ltd legally entitled to take the money from L Ltd in these circumstances, bearing in mind the te...

3. Z Ltd v P Ltd [2023] NZDT 604 (7 November 2023) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...Disputes Tribunal was made on 14 July 2021 with respect to the previous claim. This new claim is different from the previous claim. A dispute has arisen between the parties whereby Z Ltd alleges that the work done by P Ltd was not done with reasonable care and skill and the resulting product/s were not fit for purpose. Z Ltd also alleges that P Ltd have therefore breached the terms of the contract between them, causing it loss. 2. QL appeared at the hearings on behalf of Z Ltd. RJ app...

4. Baker v High Court (Costs) [2022] NZHRRT 4 [pdf, 696 KB]

   ...her statement of claim in the Tribunal the plaintiff first filed with the Human Rights Commission a complaint that she believed she had been subjected to victimisation and discrimination by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for being a part-time carer of the plaintiff’s child. [9.3] By email dated 10 June 2021 the Commission explained to the plaintiff that the terms of HRA, s 79(3) prevented the Commission from offering its dispute resolution service: I write in response to your com...

5. OIA-106275.pdf [pdf, 362 KB]

   ...case. This table counts cases active as at the same date each year A case may involve a mix of self-represented parties, parties with lawyers, and parties of an unknown status. A party may be involved in one or more cases at the same point in time, e.g. Care of Children Act 2004 case and a Family Violence Act 2018 case. This data includes cases filed under the following case types: *It has only been possible to record a party as self-represented in a standardised way since mid-2013, as such s...

6. TC v X Ltd & I Ltd [2024] NZDT 706 (4 September 2024) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...plumbing claims its invoiced amount of $1334.00 from TC. 8. The issues to be determined are: • Were the blockages caused by construction waste? • If so, what remedy is available to TC? • Did I Ltd perform their service with reasonable care and skill when they opened up the ceiling to check for issues further down the system? • If not, what remedy is available to TC? Were the blockages caused by construction waste? 9. I find that there is insufficient evidence to...

7. E82 Martin Te Moni - EIC - Ngaati Whanaunga [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   ...involved with the Mana Whenua Panuku Governance Forum (“Governance Forum”) since around 2016. 8. Initially, we envisaged the relationship or partnership between Mana Whenua and Panuku would act as a korowai that encompassed our culture and protected our values. We hoped that the Governance Forum would allow us to have a voice and participate in matters that relate to our ancestral lands, water and other taonga and to help to give effect to related principles of Te Tiriti o Wa...

8. [2023] NZREADT 32 UM v REAA (3 November 2023) [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...self- referring a compensation claim. If it reverses or modifies a decision of a Committee, it may exercise any of the powers that the Committee could have exercised, including a referral under s 93(1)(ha). This is consistent with the consumer protection focus of the Act. Access to the Tribunal should not be unduly deterred. [40] In self-referring, the Tribunal would have to be satisfied of the existence of the same criteria as the Committee would have to be. The Committee’s...

9. Johnson v Canterbury/Westland Standards Committee 3 - Outcome of appeal of decisions [2018] NZLCDT 5 and [2018] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 439 KB]

   ...26 Grounds of appeal on Charge 1 42 Analysis on Charge 1 43 No duty to give advice as to trustees’ duties 46 Preferring expert evidence of Mr Eades to that of Mr Haynes 50 Failure to follow Bartle 51 Rule 3 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules 60 Finding that Mr Johnson was guilty of high end negligence 63 Appeal on Charges 2 and 3 72 Scope of appeal on Charges 2 and 3 78 What constitutes misconduct? 79 Appeal against penalty 88 Result 101 Int...

10. Malik v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 7 [pdf, 313 KB]

    .................................................................... 31 Inspections by Building Consent Authorities ..................................................... 32 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCES OF THE COUNCIL – VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA / BREAK IN THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION / NO DUTY OF CARE...................... 40 Contributory Negligence ................................................................................ 44 CONCLUSION AND ORDERS ...................................................