Search Results

1. Coma v Real Estate Agents Authority [2019] NZREADT 14 [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...that there was no error in Committee’s decision to take no further action on the complaint. In other words, Mr Coma was found by the Committee not to have breached any provision of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012, or any provision of the Act. The complainants’ contentions to the opposite effect were rejected. [32] That outcome can be seen by any person reading the decision. A reader can see that there was nothing in the complaint...

2. [2020] NZEnvC 108 Terra NZ Group Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 406 KB]

   ...3 (i) The earthworks exceeded the area of 2,600 m2 authorised by Condition 1 of the resource consent; and (ii) The culverts for the road exceeded the permitted activity standards, being longer than 30 metres and with erosion and sediment protection works in excess of 5 metres. [8] The relevant rules under the AUP appear to be Rule E3.4.1 (A33) in respect of culvert lengths and Rule E3.6.1.14 (b) in respect of the erosion and sediment protection works. These were the matters...

3. Complaints Assessment Committee 403 v Zhang [2018] NZREADT 53 [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...through a disciplinary process that is independent, transparent, and effective. Penalties for misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct are determined bearing in mind the need to maintain a high standard of conduct in the industry, the need for consumer protection, the maintenance of confidence in the industry, and the need for deterrence. [10] A penalty should be appropriate for the particular nature of the misbehaviour, and the Tribunal should endeavour to maintain consistency in pen...

4. YA & AZ v BT [2024] NZDT 765 (22 November 2024) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...or into their roof. It also was not adequate because it created ongoing maintenance expenses and because it extended too far into their property and close to their house. The applicants further submitted that even if maintenance was currently taken care of by BT and NT, if they sold their property, a future owner of their property might not do so. 23. NT argued the hedge is attractive, healthy and provides an adequate degree of privacy for the occupants of each property. NT provided r...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Small [2024] NZLCDT 32 (16 October 2024) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...(3) A person commits an offence against this Act and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $25,000 who knowingly acts in contravention of subsection (1). [10] Rule 10.2 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules) provides: Reputation of profession 10.2 A lawyer must not engage in conduct that tends to bring the profession into disrepute. [11] Rule 10.9 of the Rules provides: Misleading and deceptive conduct 10.9 A lawy...

6. Grindle v CAC 20005 & Davis [2014] NZREADT 84 [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...very clear to Ms Davis that it was important to ensure that the settlement period for the sale of her property also matched the settlement period for her purchase. 3 [11] Part of the Committee’s reasoning is as follows: “3.6 We have carefully reviewed the responses from both licensees. While we can understand that the complainant was in a competitive multiple offer situation when she made her offer to purchase the property we do find it unusual that a 10 day settlement c...

7. [2016] NZEmpC 67 Bay of Plenty DHB v Rahiri [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...facts but need to augment those also by factual findings made by the Authority or after considering evidence given at this hearing, applying to the status question now before the Court. [14] The defendant was employed by the plaintiff as a Health Care Assistant (HCA) on 9 September 2013. Ms Rahiri worked for an in-house Nursing Bureau that the DHB had set up to provide casual staff as and when required, at least for its Tauranga Hospital. As with many people employed in most DHBs,...

8. IX v AQ & AP LCRO 57 / 2012 (23 May 2012) [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...from this review is that AEH admit their mistakes, apologise, and refund all moneys paid by him and his family including payments made to consultants. He considers that he and his family have been denied access to natural 5 justice and the protection afforded by the New Zealand Bill of Rights by the actions of AEH. Because of this he requests that this Office advise the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General of the facts of this case so that they may consider revisitin...

9. LCRO 141/2013 TM v DC (7 June 2017) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...in connection with the proposed purchase of a business in [city] known as [Company] (the business). The business comprised [certain facilities]. [3] Mr DC had been recommended to Mr TM as having expertise in the sale and purchase of healthcare facilities. He also had personal experience in the ownership of associated facilities due to the fact that his family trust owned a one-half share in a [service facility] in [city]. 2 [4] Negotiations for the purchase of the busine...

10. LCRO 341/2013 QE v ML (nee BM) [pdf, 262 KB]

    ...Standards Committee had based its finding of unsatisfactory conduct. That has been cured on review and Ms GH has addressed each of the items of correspondence in her submissions on review. [65] Each of the submissions made by her have been carefully considered and the supporting correspondence examined. In each case Ms GH’s submissions are accepted. It is also noted that there was no follow-up correspondence from Mr QA to Mr QE requesting responses be provided. [66] On th...