Search Results

1. GT v TJ LCRO 10 / 2011 (20 January 2012) [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...and the relevant rule applying to each complaint the Committee decided that it would take no further action pursuant to s.152(2)(c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. It also determined that its findings should not be published, thereby protecting the privacy of both parties. [11] The Standards Committee provided a lengthy and detailed decision in which it provided comprehensive reasons for not upholding the complaints. The Committee noted that the firm had not acted for t...

2. Vikashwarjeet v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 6 (30 January 2014) [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...professional representation for clients before the cancellation took effect. [8.7] The adviser had not lodged the application before she lost her licence. The adviser did not inform her clients she was about to lose her licence, or take any other steps to protect their interests, or discharge her professional duties to them. [8.8] On 17 October 2011, someone in the adviser’s former practice lodged an application for the visitor visas. The application did not identify the adviser. It...

3. BORA Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill [pdf, 308 KB]

   ...otherwise. 12. There are two limbs to the section 21 right. First, section 21 is applicable only in respect of those activities that constitute a "search or seizure". Second, where certain actions do constitute a search or seizure, section 21 protects only against those searches or seizures that are "unreasonable" in the circumstances. 13. Clause 36 of the Bill would grant the Registrar the power to: • require a person to produce for inspection relevant document...

4. Kumeroa - Raetihi 2B 2C 2C 2A1 (2003) 128 Aotea MB 1 (128 AOT 1) [pdf, 284 KB]

   ...granted by the lower court. The Maori Appellate Court held that as s 136(d) of the Act had not been satisfied the appeal would be allowed and the lower court order changing the status from Maori freehold to Generai land be reversed. Summary Having carefully considered the evidence and submissions of the Applicant, the Court is not satisfied that s136(d) if the Act has been fulfilled. Therefore, the application to change the status of Raetihi 2B 2C 2C 2A 1 from Maori freehold land to G...

5. [2022] NZEnvC 053 G & T Family Trust v Western Bay of Plenty District Council [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...the classification of an “extreme case” required to displace the principle that costs are unlikely to be awarded where an appeal is resolved without a hearing. It considers that its conduct was far from unreasonable; rather, its process was careful and considered to ensure fairness, accuracy and transparency in its decision making. Accordingly, Ms Hill submits that the Council did not breach any duty in its conduct of the appeal, therefore an award of costs is not warranted....

6. Jacobs - Waiteti No. 2A1B2A1C6 Block (2021) 260 Waiariki MB 110 (260 WAR 110) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...status produces better prices, while often true, is no reason to change status. That would be the case on every proposal to alienate Māori land. If price were a valid argument, the effect would be to remove the interest of the wider kin group so carefully protected in the Act in the ordinary run of cases. [10] In Yeoward – Ngapuna A25, I commented on the importance of formally notifying the PCA about an application for a status change:3 In cases like this, where a change of statu...

7. NQ v HN [2022] NZDT 38 (6 April 2022) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...NQ entitled to a full refund of his purchase price? Is HN “in trade” selling working dogs? 4. When a good is sold by a seller who is in trade selling goods of that description, then guarantees may be implied into that agreement for the protection of the consumer. An animal comes within the definition of a good. Section 6 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 provides that goods supplied to a consumer must be of an acceptable quality. Section 7 defines acceptable quality as bei...

8. BT v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 574 (30 July 2024) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...finding, U Ltd had no reason at all to take any special precautions, such as moving or raising customer vehicles which were secured as usual within their workshop. They had no more reason than their customers had to take any particular actions to protect the vehicles based on the heavy rain warning. I therefore find that the claim in negligence is not established. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 5. While U Ltd has no legal liability to BT for the loss of his vehicle in the flo...

9. Aitken v Laudermilk [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...any work done by Mr Fyfe was in itself the cause of a leak and damage. Accordingly, Mr Gary Fyfe is hereby removed. LIABILITY OF THE COUNCIL [78] The fourth respondent, the Marlborough District Council acknowledges that it owes a duty of care to the claimants as subsequent owners of the house. However the Council submits that its actions or omissions have not caused the losses claimed. Instead it argues that the claimants’ losses are due to lack of maintenance and the cla...

10. Holmes v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2014] NZHRRT 54 [pdf, 214 KB]

    1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHRRT 54 Reference No. HRRT 012/2012 UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT 1993 BETWEEN GORDON HENRY HOLMES PLAINTIFF AND HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION DEFENDANT AT DUNEDIN BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms WV Gilchrist, Member Ms ST Scott, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr GH Holmes in person Ms CP Paterson for Defendant DATE OF HEARING: 17, 18, 19 and 20 March 2014 DATE OF LAST SUBMI