Search Results

1. Barfoot & Thompson v CAC 20003 [2014] NZREADT 48 [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...at the auction. The complainant (another potential purchaser) claimed that the licensee had advised him that no pre-auction offer less than $850,000 would be sufficient to stop the auction. [24] We found that when this type of situation arises, a careful agency should ensure that steps are taken to ensure fair dealing between all the parties. We upheld the Committee’s decision to take no further action against the licensee. We were not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, tha...

2. UF v OU LCRO 90 / 2011 (20 March 2013) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...that UG had in any event asked him for help and he was prepared to assist. He argued that he therefore had a relevant personal interest such as to entitle him to lodge the complaint. [17] He further referred to Rule 2.8 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules6 which requires a lawyer to make a confidential report to the Law Society if he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect that another lawyer has been guilty of misconduct. He also referred to Rule 2.9 which provides a discretion...

3. [2024] NZIACDT 14 – SC v Murthy (23 April 2024) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...Immigration) of Auckland. [4] SC, the complainant, is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in New Zealand in 2018 on a false passport and with fabricated supporting documents. He made a refugee claim which was declined. An appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (the IPT) was dismissed on 30 November 2020.1 His claim was found not to be credible. A second refugee claim was refused on 30 June 2022 and an appeal to the IPT was dismissed on 22 September 2022.2 [5] Mea...

4. Heng v Walshaw [pdf, 550 KB]

   ...84 • Vendor warranties 86 The liability of the second respondent, Peter Vining, in tort 90 • The personal liability of a director in tort 92 • Mr Vining’s role 97 • Did Mr Vining breach the duty of care and if so was there loss? 100 • Ground levels 105 • The cladding and windows 106 • Sundry Defects 109 • Duty to remedy 110 • Summary of second respondent’s liability 111 CLAIM NO.00734 – HE...

5. Auckland City Council as Assignee v Irwin [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...6. Respective Roles 12 7. David Irwin 12 8. S J Brentnall Limited 16 9. S J Brentnall 17 10. Ability to Claim 18 11. Role of S J Brentnall 19 Claim-1092.doc Claim-1092.doc 2 12. S J Brentnall Claimed Liability 21 13. Was a Duty of Care owed Independently of the Contractual Obligations? 31 14. Conclusion 44 15. Costs 45 Appendix 47 2. Summary 2.1 The claim is by the Auckland City Council which was sixth respondent, it having taken an assignment of the claim fr...

6. BORA Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill [pdf, 187 KB]

   Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 2006 24 March 2006 Attorney-General LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (CLIMATE PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL 2006 1. We have considered the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 2006 (‘the Bill’), a Member’s Bill in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons MP, for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (‘the Bill of Rights Act’). The Bil...

7. BORA Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill [pdf, 27 KB]

   Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill 6 May 2004 Attorney-General LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: PARENTAL LEAVE & EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1. We have considered whether the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (the "Bill") (PCO 5787/8) is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ("Bill of Rights Act"). We understand that the Bill will be considered by...

8. Milne v Lodge [2010] NZWHT Wellington 3 [pdf, 221 KB]

   .......................................................................................................... 17 Summary of Quantum ................................................................................... 17 DO HAYDN LODGE OR DEBRA LODGE-SCHNELLENBERG OWE THE MILNES A DUTY OF CARE, AND IF SO, HAVE THEY BREACHED THAT DUTY OF CARE? ................................................................................................................. 17 SUMMARY OF AWARD .........................

9. LCRO 212/2016 LMN Law v HR [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...Mr LM refused to accept Ms HR’s undertaking and followed the directive in Guideline 2.55, which provides: A lawyer should not seek, accept or need to rely on an undertaking from a non- lawyer. The paramount concern for the lawyer must be the protection of the interests of the client concerned. Undertakings given by lawyers can be and are enforced by a Court under its inherent jurisdiction arising from the fact that lawyers are officers of the Court. Conveyancing practitioners are n...

10. LCRO 212/2016 LM v HR (22 September 2017) [pdf, 266 KB]

    ...Mr LM refused to accept Ms HR’s undertaking and followed the directive in Guideline 2.55, which provides: A lawyer should not seek, accept or need to rely on an undertaking from a non- lawyer. The paramount concern for the lawyer must be the protection of the interests of the client concerned. Undertakings given by lawyers can be and are enforced by a Court under its inherent jurisdiction arising from the fact that lawyers are officers of the Court. Conveyancing practitioners are n...