Search Results

1. Cooper v Wellington City Council [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...Service (“WHRS”) under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 (the Act) in respect of their property at 18 Crawford Green, Miramar, Wellington. 1.2 An assessor’s report dated 22 December 2004 was provided by Don Frame of House Care Ltd (“Assessor’s report”) pursuant to s10 of the WHRS Act. 1.3 The claim was accepted pursuant to s7 of the WHRS Act. 1.4 The Claimant on 29 March 2005 made application pursuant to s26 of the Act for the matter to be refer...

2. Handisides v CAC 10030 & Cruden [2011] NZREADT 36 [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...was not on their land and the two acres was realistically less than a quarter of an acre, which was unbuildable. They claimed that Mr Handisides told them it would cost $20,000 to obtain a survey and it was not important to do this as no one would care where the boundaries were in this area anyway. [15] The Complaints Assessment Committee’s investigator met with the various parties and in November 2010 the Complaints Assessment Committee issued a decision. In that decision the Comp...

3. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Moody [2016] NZLCDT 23 [pdf, 33 KB]

   ...inspection of the file is to be subject to the approval of the Chair. The decision itself omits reference to such matters and therefore may be published in full. Medical Evidence [11] Dr Casey is a consultant psychiatrist specialising in old age care and is a practitioner of considerable experience. Dr Casey had examined Mr Moody in October 2014, twice in late 2015 and twice in early 2016. She diagnosed him as suffering from frontotemporal dementia. Dr Casey’s evidence is th...

4. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 v Mr M [2016] NZLCDT 34 [pdf, 42 KB]

   ...was imposed. [7] It is accepted by the Standards Committee Mr M, who is an older practitioner is no longer in practice and has indicated that he will not seek a practising certificate again. [8] In this sense, there is no question about direct protection of the public, it is a more indirect protection in the sense of the public being able to perceive the proper upholding of professional standards in the Tribunal’s response. [9] The Standards Committee also point to the lack of i...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 126 Henderson Travels Ltd v Kaur [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...there is a reason to believe a plaintiff will be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if the plaintiff’s claim fails.5 [19] The discretion is broad but must be exercised in the interests of justice. The interests of both parties need to be carefully weighed up. The required balancing exercise in weighing up those interests was summarised by the Court of Appeal in McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd:6 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will...

6. BG v HL LCRO 71/2013 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...context of the Officer having directed the parties to attempt to negotiate a settlement, in my view, opportunity for a Review Officer to 4 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, r 3.8. 5 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, s 201. 6 Section 201(4)(c). 8 exercise a discretion to continue with the review process, in circumstances where there has been a settlement reached following a directed med...

7. BORA Privacy (Cross-Border Information) Amendment Bill [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...important objective and is proportionate to that objective. [1] 7. Here, the objective of the provision is stated in the explanatory note as: "to ensure foreign personal data cannot be sent, via New Zealand, to jurisdictions without adequate privacy protection. These amendments will enable New Zealanders and New Zealand companies to assure their trade partners that New Zealand law will ensure their privacy is protected." 8. The Bill also makes it clear in proposed s 114B(2)(...

8. BORA Maraeroa A and B Blocks Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...defined in the Bill [1]. The Bill transfers to the descendants of the original owners of Maraeroa A and B blocks various items of cultural and commercial redress, including the vesting of property and right of first refusal over the purchase of certain protected land. It provides claimants with rights in respect of culturally significant matters, including statutory acknowledgements; overlay classifications with associated protection principles and rights of consultation; geographic name c...

9. AP v RE LCRO 322/2012 (22 August 2014) [pdf, 58 KB]

   ...was in a position to release the e- dealing) gave him adequate protection. That submission does not affect in any way the fact that Mr RE was not in a position to fulfil his undertaking until the other two sales settled. Mr AP may have prudently protected himself, but it is Mr RE’s undertaking which is under scrutiny. [35] To give such an undertaking without advising Mr AP of the facts potentially constitutes unsatisfactory conduct by reason of s 12(b)(ii) of the Lawyers and Co...

10. BU v YA LCRO 153 / 2010 (21 April 2011) [pdf, 90 KB]

    ...damages in excess of $200,000.” [15] He alleges that this is a breach of “s11.1” being misleading or deceptive conduct, by which I take it that he is referring to Rule 11.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (Client Care Rules). Rule 11.1 of the Client Care Rules provides that - “A lawyer must not engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive anyone on any aspect of the lawyer’s practice....