Search Results

1. LCRO 195/2014 MC v GK (28 May 2018) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...September 2012). 8 • Mr MC received advice of Mrs GK’s death on 12 June 2009. • Probate was granted on 14 August 2009. • It was necessary to allow a period of 12 months from the grant of Probate to elapse to allow for any Family Protection claims. • The property could not be sold until Mr GK advised he would surrender his right to occupy the property. Settlement of the sale took place on 6 July 2012. Mr GK occupied the property until the date of settlement....

2. Lethbridge v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC) & Fenton [20181] NZREADT 29 [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...4 BD 557, paragraph 4.19. [15] The third element of the proposed additional evidence is set out in a statement from Dr Christine March who is the medical general practitioner who was providing medical care to the complainant in late 2015 when the events which are the subject of the complaint took place. [16] Dr March has given a brief written statement dated 22 June 2018 confirming that the complainant was her patient and that he had chro

3. Family Court Rewrite Submission - ADL [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...families notified of its availability at different stages in the process. It could be recommended to families that would benefit from it, without it causing an additional burden. For example, there can be significant challenges in organising extra childcare for Deaf and Disabled Children who have high and complex needs around their disabilities and impairments. ADL fully supports the recommendations about accessibility and reviewing content and delivery. We hope the review would con...

4. LCRO 113/2020 SM v YL (7 May 2021) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...made the following findings against Mr YL: (a) He failed to act competently and in a timely manner consistent with the terms of his retainer and the duty to take reasonable care. (b) He failed to follow Mr SM’s instructions. (c) He failed to protect and promote Mr SM’s interests. 1 Although Mr YL’ clients were the two trustees of the T Trust, Mr SM was authorised to deal directly with Mr YL and instruct him on behalf of both trustees. For ease of reference in this decision...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Sheat [2023] NZLCDT 50 (7 November 2023) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...“reckless” in the s 7(1)(a)(ii)2 definition of misconduct. Mr Mortimer-Wang submitted that Mr Sheat’s admission of a “wilful” breach necessarily implied calculated dishonesty. 1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 2 LCA. 3 [5] Elements of both calculation (or miscalculation) and dishonesty feature in Mr Sheat’s misconduct but we do not find him guilty to the level imported by the harsh glare of the term “calculated...

6. [2023] NZEnvC 264 Fleet v Ashburton District Council [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...[1] This matter concerns additional charges levied by the Respondent under s 36 of the Act in relation to a non-complying activity consent application filed by the Appellant, Ms Fleet. [2] Ms Fleet applied for consent to undertake works on a protected tree located on her property at 30 Queens Drive, Ashburton. That application was ultimately declined although that is of no moment to these proceedings. [3] Ms Fleet paid the sum of $1,332 by way of a non-notified non-complying s...

7. BN v MV & KT [2023] NZDT 534 (5 October 2023) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...went through with MV which should have elicited a disclosure in these circumstances, including a number of specific references to flooding or water damage. She said she underscored the importance of disclosure to MV and went through the document carefully. 14. In response to this MV said that she would not consider water and clay in the garage to be flooding, but rather that it was seepage from a heavy rainfall. She also said that there had never been water in the house, but only the...

8. LR v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for overseas rehabilitation costs) [2023] NZACC 29 [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...classified as 98%. His twin died in utero. [3] On 11 October 2017, a treatment injury claim was filed on the appellant’s behalf. The claim was for “brain injury, skin injury, kidney injury” and related to an alleged delay in obstetric care. The claim was lodged on the basis that there had been a failure to recognise and treat twin to twin transfusion syndrome (“TTTS”) and arrange an earlier delivery. [4] On 6 July 2018, the claim was investigated. It was confirmed th...

9. BX v DG & MX [2024] NZDT 378 (26 June 2024) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...of sanity”. BX also produced a written statement from UK, who had previously had possession of [the horse] with a view to selling him for DG before MX’s agency commenced. UK said that [the horse]’s manners had improved when he had been in her care, but that he had bucked her off on one occasion “for no reason” and had felt somewhat like “a ticking time bomb”. On other occasions, he had been “super”. She would not have been comfortable selling him to a beginner or a nervous...

10. Auckland Standards Committee v Banbrook [2014] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 104 KB]

    ...purposes of a disciplinary hearing the Tribunal could certainly consider context, as established by the practitioner and have regard to any mitigating factors. However, Mr Hodge pointed out that the Summary of Facts was a lengthy, detailed, and careful document agreed after lengthy negotiation between the prosecuting authority and the practitioner at a time when he was being represented by a Queens Counsel. 6 Banbrook v The Queen...