Search Results

1. Schiller-Cooper v Lozano [2013] NZIACDT 17 (21 March 2013) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...considering at least four factors which materially bear upon maintaining appropriate standards of conduct: 5 [17.1] Protecting the public: section 3 of the Act states “The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice ...” [17.2] Demanding minimum standards of conduct: Dentice v Valuers Registration Board [1992] 1 NZLR 720 (HC) and Taylor v General Medical Council [1990] 2 All ER 263 (PC), discuss this aspect. [1...

2. Tong & Anor v CAC 20004 & Ors [2014] NZREADT 3 [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...$295,000. As such, the appellants may have suffered losses of up to $295,000 on the sale of the land and buildings as a result of Mr Regan failing to disclose Ms Alford’s interest in purchasing the café together with general damages and other consequential loss. 46. The appellants have suffered a great deal of stress from discovering that they were not informed of a potential purchaser of their café, and from the ensuing proceedings. Waiheke Island is a notoriously small commu...

3. Proactive-release-20240715-CAB-Regulatory-Systems-Justice-Amendment-Bill_Final.pdf [pdf, 9.6 MB]

   ...amend 20 Acts, focusing on areas of priority for this Government. In addition, we are also seeking to amend two Acts which impact courts and tribunals operations within the Workplace Relations and Safety portfolio and one Act within the Commerce and Consumer Affairs portfolio. We are also seeking to amend one Act that is jointly administered by the Ministry of Justice and Corrections. Relevant portfolio Ministers have agreed to these changes. Proposed amendments 12 The overall policy o...

4. Director of Proceedings v Smith (Costs) [2020] NZHRRT 35 [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...APPLICATION FOR COSTS Procedural background [17] The circumstances of the present application for costs are unusual. On the substantive issue whether the defendant breached the Health and Disability Commissioner (Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights) Regulations 1996 (Code) in respect of Right 4(1) the defendant consented to a declaration under HDCA, s 54(1)(a) that she had breached this right by failing to provide services to the aggrieved person with reasonable...

5. Ms C v CAC 10036 & Whitehorn [2012] NZREADT 53 [pdf, 47 KB]

   ...made against [the licensee] at the time when the conduct occurred” – in terms of s.172(2) to which we refer further below. [6] We note that, somehow, this file was mislaid for a time in our Registry; and we apologise to the parties for the consequential delay. The 10 August 2011 Decision of the Complaints Assessment Committee 10036 [7] The Committee’s decision considered the issue of publication of its finding of unsatisfactory conduct against the appellant. The Committe...

6. CAC 20006 v Spencer [2013] NZREADT 55 [pdf, 47 KB]

   ...Committee.” [7] The increased penalties for unsatisfactory conduct introduced by the 2008 Act are a key part of the new disciplinary process through which the 2008 Act seeks to achieve its purpose: i.e. to promote and protect the interests of consumers in respect of transactions that relate to real estate and to promote public confidence in the performance of real estate agency work. The Stance of the Prosecution on Penalty [8] The prosecution submits that the failures identified...

7. HR v OW & CT LCRO 79/2014 (8 September 2015) [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...responsible for the lawyer’s conduct; that is their concern. Putting the financial costs to one side for a moment, it is clear from Mr 6 HR’s evidence that the lawyers’ conduct in this matter has caused him significant inconvenience. The consequential orders made under s 156 should address the unsatisfactory nature of the conduct. Apology [25] The combination of s 156(1)(c) and s 211(1)(b) enables a LCRO to order a lawyer to address his or her unsatisfactory conduct...

8. [2018] NZEmpC 111 Hines v Eastland Port Ltd [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...relation to the application for costs in the Court; (c) he raises issues about claimed disbursements; and 1 Hines v Eastland Port Ltd [2018] NZEmpC 79. (d) he disagrees with the “consequential” claims advanced (being for interest sought on the costs judgment sum, and costs associated with the costs application). Costs payable in relation to the Authority [3] Clause 15 of sch 2 of the Employment Relations...

9. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v O'Connor [2023] NZLCDT 21 (17 May 2023) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...court hearings. [29] His Honour carefully analysed the rationale underlying section 244(3):6 The Act is protective in nature, in that two of its primary purposes are to maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services and to protect consumers of legal services. Once a properly constituted Tribunal has concluded that a person is not a fit and proper person to be a practitioner, the need to protect the public from that person becomes paramount. Parliament has sought to ac...

10. OWRUG Updated Supplementary S Dicey Planning 24 March 2021 [pdf, 789 KB]

    ...is a lack of clarity about what evidence might be required or accepted to show that irrigation areas have not expanded. For larger schemes, which can cover thousands of hectares and have hundreds of shareholders, this would be complex and time consuming. As such it does not serve the process based purpose of PC7. 3 PP-1035600-2-391-V1 12. In addition, the Resource Management (National Environmental Standards for Freshwater) Regulations 2020 effectively manages expansion...