Search Results

1. [2021] NZEnvC 171 Public and Population Health Unit of the Northland District Health Board v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 546 KB]

   ...temperature, atmospheric stability); 5. Appropriateness of particle size and release height, particularly in relation to spray-sensitive areas and buffer zones; 6. Presence and condition of shelter belts; 7. Fit for purpose equipment and personal protective equipment; 8. Confirmation that notification has been carried out and required signage is in place (see C3 and C4); 9. Confirmation that any relevant regulatory requirements can be complied with; 10. Confirmat...

2. Summary of Submissions notification rules Privacy Act 2020 [pdf, 312 KB]

   ...disproportionate effort. If adopted, this change would align with Article 14 of the GDPR. See ‘Privacy Act Review: Discussion Paper’ Australian Government: Attorney General’s Department, pp.10-11. https://consultations.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/privacy-act-review-discussion-paper/user_uploads/privacy-act-review-discussion-paper.pdf https://consultations.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/privacy-act-review-discussion-paper/user_uploads/privacy-act-review-discussion-paper.pdf

3. AP v ZG LCRO 278/2012 (14 March 2014) [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...review hearing I indicated to Mr T that at the hearing I wished to discuss the broader issue of whether a solicitor/client relationship existed between the Practitioner and Mrs AP (and the other contributors) in terms of the Conduct and Client Care Rules7 with resulting obligations on the Practitioner. With regard to conduct prior to 1 August 2008 the Conduct and Client Rules did not exist, but the usual common law rules and the rules of professional conduct in force at the time appl...

4. LCRO 198/2020 CO and EA v LT (29 August 2023) [pdf, 673 KB]

   ...recklessness or there are numerous instances of incompetence, this may be a matter for disciplinary intervention. To be a basis for charges before the Disciplinary Tribunal, the negligence or incompetence must be serious enough to require potentially protective orders of the Tribunal (such as suspension). Justice Kirby’s approach is instructive (noting that the question there was whether conduct amounted to misconduct): but the statutory test is not met by mere professional incompet...

5. LCRO 118/2023 TC v GS (13 December 2023) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...that he had apparently expressed. Relevantly, he recorded that: (a) the Firm had been instructed not to contact the applicant’s new lawyers and had respected that instruction; (b) the applicant’s allegation that the Firm that was “… scared that the Maori will be protesting you that’s why you hesitated to settle” was denied and the Firm was “… not sure who would be protesting about what”; (c) the applicant’s allegation that the Firm “… informed the bank manage...

6. Murphy v CAC 10060 & Cussen [2012] NZREADT 52 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...Rea submits that for each of the complaints Ms Cussen was not engaged in real estate agency work, as she was not doing any work in trade on behalf of another person for the purpose of bringing about a transaction. [7] We have considered this point carefully. [8] After the conclusion of the hearing further submissions were received from all counsel and Mr Murphy himself as to the weight to be placed on the Famularo decision. [9] The REAA urged the Tribunal to put to one side the F...

7. Dixon v CAC 20004 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 98 [pdf, 42 KB]

   ...case we consider the advertisement was in the nature of puffery rather than a 5 representation about the state of the property. The evidence did not show Ms Dixon was misled by the advertisement nor did she claim to be. Further she was protected by the agreement being conditional upon a builder’s inspection clause. However had Ms Dixon been misled then this may have been a breach of R 6.4. The Piles [20] In Wright v CAC and Woods [2011] NZREADT 21 the Tribunal...

8. Henderson v CAC 20008 & Jones [2014] NZREADT 73 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...position remained unchanged and unaltered. Further, he submitted that the simple presence of two men in Mrs Henderson’s kitchen could not in itself constitute unfair pressure. He submitted that both Mr Jones and Mr Beilby were adamant that they went carefully through the agreement with Mrs Henderson and raised with her the question of the building report. They say that it was clear that 5 the building report was not required by Mrs Henderson. Mr Parker submitted that the t...

9. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Austin [2016] NZLCDT 33 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...professionalism, integrity and client care attributed to Mr Austin. We also note the considerable community contribution made by him on a pro bono basis. [17] The Tribunal has often noted that, in the context of a regime guided by the requirement for protection of the public, references in particular relating to personal circumstances cannot carry as much weight as in other circumstances. In this case, we do not consider there is or was any risk to the public, other than in relation...

10. [2018] NZSSAA 31 (5 July 2018) [pdf, 145 KB]

    ...adjourn the proceedings. Background [18] On 29 September 2016, the appellant applied for JSS with a medical deferral after his ACC payments stopped. When he applied for JSS he said his wife 5 was from China and her son was in his care. On 19 October 2016, he was granted JSS at the sole parent rate. His wife was not included in this benefit because she did not meet the residency criteria in s 74AA of the Act, which requires a person who is not a New Zealand citiz...