Search Results

1. Waitangi Tribunal Part 2 Report on stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry [pdf, 4.4 MB]

   ...‘Let these be corrected, and the evils must be diminished.’ 60 The association’s Bill – for ‘the provisional Government of British Settlements in the Islands of New Zealand’ – was tabled on 1 June 1838. It professed the intention of protecting and benefiting Māori by preserving them from injury, ‘diffusing amongst them the blessings of Christianity, and promoting their civilization and happi- ness’. It allowed for the appointment of 16 commissioners who could enter in...

2. Kek, Bayley, Bayleys Real Estate Ltd v CAC409 & C & S Morris [2019] NZREADT 26 (20 June 2019) [pdf, 278 KB]

   ...a sufficient deterrent, and had not sufficiently achieved the purposes of 4 At paragraphs 5.28 to 5.34. 5 Committee’s penalty decision, at paragraphs 4.8–4.13. the Act of promoting and protecting the interests of consumers, and promoting public confidence in relation to real estate agency work. It noted a submission made by Mr and Mrs Morris that Ms Kek be ordered to undertake further training. However, the Committee did...

3. [2018] NZEmpC 151 Ovation New Zealand Ltd v The New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. The Explanatory note accompanying the Bill provides a general policy statement to this effect: This Bill implements government policy to make legislative provision for the promotion and protection of infant feeding through breastfeeding and for rest and meal breaks. The Bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Employment Relations Act) to require employers to provide facilities and breaks for employees who wish to...

4. DV v RG LCRO 141/2015 (28 June 2016) [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...arising from Ms DV’s complaint: (a) Whether Mr RG failed to act competently in relation to the variation of the agreement? (rule 3);1 1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 3 (b) Whether Mr RG failed to respond to queries in a timely manner? (rule 3); and (c) Whether Mr RG represented to Ms DV that he was a lawyer in breach of sections 21 to 24 of the Act. [10] The Committe...

5. Ms L v REAA Registrar [2013] NZREADT 47 [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...likely to manufacture methamphetamine on her premises. We are conscious that, as set out below, she was sentenced on the basis of having turned a blind eye to the likely criminal offending of the said two males. [24] Of course, the applicant was carefully and thoroughly cross-examined by Mr McCoubrey and, inter alia, she insisted that she was not trying to minimise the material events or her involvement (if any) in them. [25] Also, Mr McCoubrey took the applicant through her testimon...

6. [2021] NZEnvC 168 Director-General of Conservation v Thames-Coromandel District Council [pdf, 454 KB]

   ...for Rule 5.5 to matters 1, 8 and 9 in Table 5 at the end of s 54. Matter 8 appears to be of no relevance (it deals with light spill). [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] 24 Conclusion We have not mentioned every submitter by name but have carefully considered all input. Some either chose to try to re-litigate our main decision, or to ignore it. We have had to disregard such input. Others did not or chose not to accept the importance of dealing with the scourge in the pu...

7. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Arman [2020] NZLCDT 17 (22 June 2020) [pdf, 289 KB]

   ...conviction, Mr F attended the Practitioner’s office to swear an affidavit in support of the application for a discharge without conviction. In the affidavit dated 8 December 2017, Mr F said the following about the offending: I am a kind, generous, caring person who made a huge mistake on the day of the offending. I am extremely sorry that I made the victim of my offending feel so uncomfortable and scared. I never had any intention of touching her or anything of that nature and I am s...

8. Hauora-Chapt10W.pdf [pdf, 1 MB]

   .... . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.3 Funding a Treaty-compliant health system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.3.1 Our interim recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10.3.2 Overview of funding for the primary health care system since 2000 14 10.3.3 The Sapere report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 10.3.4 The parties’ responses to the Sapere report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10.3.4.1 The Crown . . . . . . . . . . . ....

9. LCRO 52/2017 BL v JC (30 November 2018) [pdf, 332 KB]

   LCRO 52/2017 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN BL Applicant AND JC Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Ms BL has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee [X] to take no furth

10. Tabram v Slater [pdf, 99 KB]

    IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2007-100-000041 BETWEEN RICHARD TABRAM and HAYLEY TABRAM Claimants AND ARRAN SLATER and MICHELLE SLATER First Respondent AND OJO LIMITED Second Respondent AND BRUCE TINDALE (Removed) Third Respondent AND MINERAL PLASTER TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED Fourth Respondent Hearing: 23, 24, 25 February 2009; 5, 11 March 2009 Appearances: T.J. Rainey and A. Parlane for the claimants E.J. Taia for the first respondents A. M