Search Results

1. [2023] NZEnvC 183 W North Limited v Wellington Regional Council [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...where they fall and submits that at all times in conducting this proceeding it has acted pmdently and reasonably. Specifically, tl1e Council considers that it has acted in good faitl1 to discharge its responsibilities and functions under RNIA to protect natural wetlands, and updated its position in light of tl1e Adams judgment, at tl1e earliest stage available to it. Discussion [5] Section 285 of tl1e R1\11A confers a broad discretion. The Environment Court may order any party to...

2. 2021-02-22 Notice of Hearing - Willowridge Developments Ltd - s 281 application [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...Baker-Galloway, Anderson Lloyd (Queenstown), PO Box 201, DX ZP95010, Queenstown Interested Party Phil Murray Resource Management Ltd Phil Murray Resource Management Ltd Interested Party Pine Terrace Ltd Nicole Dowling Interested Party Pomahaka Water Care Group Pomahaka Water Care Group Interested Party Puketoi Farming Company Ltd Puketoi Farming Company Ltd Interested Party Queenstown Lakes District Council Janette Campbell, Meredith Connell, PO Box 90750, Auckland 1142 Intere...

3. DR v BU Ltd [2022] NZDT 199 (22 November 2022) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...issues and is not intended to be a full record of the hearings or evidence presented. Did the respondent have a right to tow the applicants’ car? 4. The right to tow vehicles is governed by both the common law and statute including consumer protection and road user legislation. Additional requirements for vehicle recovery services are also imposed by the Land Transport Rule Operator Licensing 2017 Rule. In general, owners of Page 2 of 4 land are entitled to remove tresp...

4. JQ v QM LCRO 97 / 2011 (28 August 2012) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...intimidating or inappropriate. It was claimed that the Practitioner was ringing in his personal capacity as a defendant, not in his professional capacity as a lawyer. Counsel submitted that in these circumstances the Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules 2008 (“the Rules”) did not apply. [7] In the course of the Standards Committee enquiry the Practitioner was asked to specifically address whether or not the test of misconduct set out in section 7(1)(b)(ii) applied to him. T...

5. [2020] NZIACDT 22 - NJUM v VOLE (2 June 2020) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...breach of cl 1 of the Code (being professional) and of cl 31(a) (not providing false documentation to a visa officer). [18] Furthermore, it was found that Mr Vole had breached a number of other Code obligations: (1) He lacked diligence and due care in filing applications without the necessary documents, in breach of cl 1; (2) He failed to provide to the complainant written confirmation of material discussions with her, in breach of cl 26(c); and (3) He failed to provide to the...

6. LCRO 229/2017 and 021/2018 VL v YN (8 May 2019) [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...lack of action and their incompetence caused us to lose the property we had wanted to buy and further because it was conditional on the sale of our own property which we sold we are now homeless. Devon VL did not act in accordance to her duties of care for us as clients. Devon VL did not act competently, in a timely manner or in accordance with instructions received. Devon VL did not act to protect or promote our interests. Devon VL did not treat us fairly. Mr CA’s submissions...

7. Ron Lunken Family Trust v Haywood Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 66 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...and partly verbal and that Haywood was responsible for both design and construction. It is claimed that Haywood breached clause 2 of the contract by failing to carry out the construction to the required standards and by breaching its duty of care as the builder. [6] The Trustees and the Council claim against Mr de Geest in tort as the project manager on the ground that Mr de Geest personally assumed the role of project manager and was responsible for supervising and co-o...

8. [2021] NZIACDT 13 - TI v Malcolm (8 June 2021) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...There was no response from Mr Malcolm. Complaint referred to Tribunal [23] The Registrar referred the complaint to the Tribunal on 20 April 2021. It alleges the following against Mr Malcolm: (1) negligence, or alternatively a lack of due care in breach of cl 1 of the Code, by – (a) failing to lodge the application in time; (b) failing to lodge the application online; (c) failing to inform the complainant of Immigration New Zealand’s letter of 23 October 2020; (d) fai...

9. KIT v Zhu [2019] NZIACDT 34 (20 May 2019) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...[25] However, it was accepted by Mr Zhu that he neglected to have a signed contract with the complainant. Nor did he provide the Code of Conduct 2014 (the Code) to the complainant. He also admitted not checking the interim visa issue with due care. He further acknowledged that his file notes were not complete, which was a vital mistake to make. [26] Mr Zhu set out in his letter to the Authority his proposed remedial action. This included asking all 16 staff, apart from the thr...

10. LCRO 14/2020 CL v BB (18 December 2020) [pdf, 150 KB]

    ...services and terminated instructions on 16 November 2018. Mr BB rendered his account in the sum of $3,475 plus GST and disbursements. Ms CL’s complaints [8] Ms CLs letter of complaint summarised the issues that concerned her: “Lack of duty of care – excessive account – $4,171.25, being charged $70 emails to book an appointment and then receive “ok” back.”1 She has analysed the firm’s time records and refers to charges of $70 for minor administrative matters. She...