Search Results

1. [2022] NZREADT 23 - CAC 1904 v Bright (8 November 2022) [pdf, 278 KB]

   ...seriously negligent real estate agency work”. Work of that nature would also involve a marked and serious departure from particular standards; the 8 Section 110. 9 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [101]–[102], & [112]. 10 Morton-Jones v Real Estate Agents Authority [2016] NZHC 1804. 12 standards to which s 73(b) is directed are those relating to competence and care in conducting real estate agency work. [30] This is...

2. LCRO 59/2021 RY v QX (21 December 2022) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...attorney. 21 A lawyer must not certify the truth of any matter to any person unless he or she believes on reasonable grounds that the matter certified is true after having taken appropriate steps to ensure the accuracy of the certification. [101] Moreover, r 2.6 provides if that lawyer “subsequently discovers” a certificate given “was or has become inaccurate or incomplete to a material extent”, then the lawyer “must immediately take reasonable steps to correct the certi...

3. [2022] NZEmpC 183 Butt v Attorney-General [pdf, 372 KB]

   ...to the Butts. 33 At [42]–[43]. [100] There is no evidence to indicate that Ms McKechnie intentionally misled the Butts. She says she was unaware of Ms Wilson’s understanding until the email from the Butts of 4 September 2020. [101] If Ms McKechnie did not intentionally make the representation, she cannot have agreed that the truth of that representation was essential. [102] Likewise, while there is no doubt that it was essential to the Butts, there is no evidenc...

4. Rata v Rata - Takahiwai 5F1 [2023] Chief Judge's MB 60 (2023 CJ 60) [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...MB 311 dated 17/03/1982 (minute and order);  Copy of 104 Whangarei MB 285-287 dated 23/01/2006 (minute);  Copy of 102 Whangarei MB 293-297 dated 24/08/2005 (minute);  Copy of 102 Whangarei MB 41-48 dated 31/05/2005 (minute);  Copy of 101 Whangarei MB dated 18/03/2005 (minute);  Copy of 120 Taitokerau MB 20-25 dated 27/10/2015 (minute and order);  Copy of Deed of Gift dated 20/07/2010 between Dawson Rata and Christine Rata with regards to the ‘tin shed’;  Copy...

5. LCRO 113/2021 VN v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (27 June 2022) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...Mr VN does not ventilate his complaint on the back of simple allegation that Judge A had dismissed his application and had refused to reinstate it. His complaint is considerably more expansive and includes complaint about the conduct of Judge B. [101] Whilst Mr VN provides a background to the events of 17 September 2020 in his complaint to the JCC, the substance of his complaint includes allegation that: (a) Judge B’s attitude to his application was “hostile”; and (b) Judge B ha...

6. LCRO 167/2021 MP v IC (28 April 2022) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...particular review of securing a clear understanding of particular steps that were taken in the course of litigation that proceeded some years ago. I am mindful of the cautious need to avoid speculating as to what may or may not have occurred. [101] But it is reasonable to conclude that after Mr IC was instructed, considerable progress was made towards achieving a settlement of relationship property matters, and that these steps were achieved with Ms MP’s understanding and agreeme...

7. Wilton TRI-2021-100-002 Procedural Order 7 [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...about July 2019. Neither Tiling Solutions nor the council has proven that the date the trustees sought the assessor’s report was at least three years after the late knowledge date or at least 10 years after the relevant acts or omissions. [101] The trustees’ claims against Tiling Solutions and the council based on the original build are not time-barred. It is therefore not fair and appropriate to remove Tiling Solutions or the council. [102] There is no need for the Trib...

8. LCRO 183/2021 WB v XD (22 July 2022) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...XD’s response to this aspect of Mr WB’s complaint would have been best met not just with an acknowledgement that his communications could have been better, but with apology for failure to be as attentive to responding as he could have been. [101] In considering this issue, I am not however persuaded that the evidence to support complaint that Mr XD failed to communicate with his client is sufficiently extensive to merit the imposition of a disciplinary sanction. [102] Not every...

9. Goel v Barron [2022] NZHRRT 28 [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...injury to feelings suffered; see Singh at [100]. Once a causal connection is established damages must be such as to adequately compensate the plaintiff for the behaviour to which he has been subjected rather than to punish the defendant; see Singh at [101]. Any award of damages imports a subjective element to its assessment. [78] Mr Goel said that he was shaken and humiliated by the call. His evidence was that he stayed awake thinking about the call and talking about it with his wife,...

10. Human-Rights-Commission-submissions-on-scope-of-inquiry.pdf [pdf, 379 KB]

    ...human rights and death investigations has 21 Chamberlain v Minister of Health [2018] 2 NZLR 771 (CA) at [31]. 22 Attorney-General v Chapman [2011] NZSC 110, [2012] 1 NZLR 462, (2011) 9 HRNZ 257 at [4] per Elias CJ; See also Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305, (2011) 9 HRNZ 424 at [36] per Elias CJ. 23 R v Hansen [2007] 3 NZLR 1 at [179] per McGrath J. 24 At [252]. 25 At [252]. 26 Quilter v Attorney-General [1998] 1 NZLR 523, at 530. 27 See Fleming v Attorney-General [202...