Search Results

1. LCRO 111/2015 UA v VB (12 May 2017) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...assumed facts recited above are incorrect. Mr VB was not instructed until Mr and Mrs UA wanted to sell the property. 4 Hereafter the vendor will be referred to as Mr XF. 3  The title to the property was complex with numerous interests protected by numerous documents registered against the title.  Mr XF had reserved an option to buy the property back if the subdivision could not be effected.  Mr VB was first instructed when Mr and Mrs UA wanted to sell the pr...

2. [2018] NZEnvC 145 Federated Farmers of New Zealand Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...Holdings Limiled [1999] NZRMA 468 at 474. "Reference" is easily substituted with "appeal" to reflect current terminology. Citing Countdown Properties (Northlands) Ltd v Dunedin Cily Council [1994] NZRMA 145; Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc v Southland District Council [1997] NZRMA 408. Option 5 Incorporated v Marlborough District Council (2009) 16 ELRNZ 1 at [15]. 5 Notices of motion and evidence [11) I have considered the Council's notice of mo...

3. [2022] NZEnvC 152 Ngai Taiwhakaea v Whakatane District Council [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...possibility of settlement where compromise could have been reasonably expected; and 10 DFC NZ Ltd v Bielby [1991] 1 NZLR 587. [11] 6 (e) where a party takes a technical or unmeritorious point. The High Court in Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd11 signalled a potential departure from the Bielby factors in favour of the High Court costs principles. However, this Court has identified concerns with the approach in BW Offshore and has a...

4. NG & OG v JS [2024] NZDT 33 (18 January 2024) [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...means that, during contractual negotiations, a seller is generally under no obligation to ensure that the other party is fully informed about the transaction, and the seller need not disclose all material facts/defects about the goods. Further, the protections given by the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and the Fair Trading Act 1986 to purchasers who purchase from suppliers in trade are not available to a private purchaser. However, the law of misrepresentation set out in s35(1)(a) of the Co...

5. CS & KS v H Ltd [2023] NZDT 605 (13 November 2023) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...rooms requires good guttering. Their concern about the gutters is that in future events with heavier rainfall the gutters may overflow 13. HG points out that the inverter is weatherproof to the IP 65 standard. “IP” refers to “International Protection”, and is a standardised code established by the EU as code EN 60529. To meet this standard an appliance must be able demonstrate complete resistance to dust for up to 8 hours (level 6, the first number), and resistance to water...

6. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v Beacham [2012] NZLCDT 29 [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...interest (which include “protection of the public”), to maintain professional standards, to impose sanctions on a practitioner for breach of his/her duties, and to provide scope for rehabilitation in appropriate cases. Tribunals are required to carefully consider alternatives to striking off a practitioner. If the purposes of imposing disciplinary sanctions can be achieved short of striking off then it is the lesser alternative that should be adopted as the proportionate response....

7. Canterbury Standards Committee v A Practitioner [2015] NZLCDT 44 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...context he submitted that ‘fraudulent’ had a wider meaning than fraud in a criminal sense. He queried why otherwise would the word ‘criminal’ be used in the rule. He argued that narrowing the interpretation of the word would reduce the protection of the public and would undermine the purpose of the legislation as provided for in ss 3 and 4 of the Act for the maintenance of public confidence. 7 [27] The Tribunal has determined that it is not necessary to resolve the ar...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Yoo [2016] NZLCDT 35 [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...responsibility, has led to him setting matters in order and we will refer more specifically to that under the discussion of “mitigation”. [5] We record, as has been said many times, that the purposes of penalty in the disciplinary jurisdiction is to protect the public, to maintain the standards of the legal profession, to maintain the reputation of the profession and the public’s confidence in it as a result. [6] The starting point for assessing proper penalty is to consid...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 5 VMR v Civil Aviation Authority [pdf, 519 KB]

   VMR v CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY [2022] NZEmpC 5 [24 January 2022] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2022] NZEmpC 5 EMPC 386/2021 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN VMR First Plaintiff AND KRR Second Plaintiff AND WEN Third Plaintiff AND XDD Fourth Plaintiff AND CIVIL AVIATION AU

10. Slinger v Zhou [2015] NZIACDT 38 (15 April 2015) [pdf, 242 KB]

    ...before commencing work that incurred costs (clause 8(b)). [8.2] That Ms Zhou breached clauses 1.1(a) and (b) of the 2010 Code; those provisions required Ms Zhou to perform her services and carryout the lawful informed instructions of clients with due care, diligence, respect and professionalism. The particulars of the alleged breaches of those obligations were: [8.2.1] In July 2011, the applicants engaged Ms Zhou to submit an expression of interest and an application for a residence vi...