Search Results

1. Milligan v Robert Brown Developments Ltd [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...be expected to have observed the lack of a flashing or rebate on the top of the beam supporting the brick veneer, and it only issued the CCC only after being satisfied on reasonable grounds that the work complied with the Building Code. [101] The Council is a duly incorporated Local Authority and is the Territorial Authority responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Building Act 1991 in Christchurch City where the Claimant’s dwelling is located. [102]...

2. Body Corporate 199883 & Ors (Ridgeview Apartments) v Clarke [2010] NZWHT Auckland 22 [pdf, 216 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2007-100-000032 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 22 BETWEEN BODY CORPORATE 199883 & OTHERS (RIDGEVIEW APARTMENTS) Claimants AND PETER LAURENCE CLARKE (Being the only remaining respondent) Fourth Respondent Hearing: 17 and 21 June 2010 Appearances: Mr C Leishman for the Claimants Fourth Respondent, Mr Peter Clarke, in person Decision: 25 August 2010 FINAL DETERMINATION Adjudicator: P J Andrew Page | 2 CONTE

3. Clarken v Carling [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...were not identifiable by a reasonable officer at the time the inspections were carried out, as defences to liability for negligent inspection and approval of the building works. CLAIM NO.00804 - CLARKEN.DETERMINATION.doc 28 Maintenance [101] Maintenance, by its very meaning implies that the work at issue was undertaken and completed properly in the first instance so that that state of finish and utility can be preserved for the future by regular checking and repairing when nec...

4. [2007] SFWU v ADHB and Ors WN WC 18/07 [pdf, 134 KB]

   SERVICE & FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA V AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD AND ORS WN WC 18/07 1 August 2007 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON WC 18/07 WRC 3/07 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN SERVICE & FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD AND 15 OTHERS LISTED IN APPENDIX 1 First Defendants AND OCS LIMITED Second Defendant AND SPOTLESS SERVICES (NZ) LIM

5. LCRO 43/2016 XZ v QW [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...sought was easily understandable and it would clearly have been the case that in the process of assembling the information that had to be put before the court, Ms XZ would have understood the substance of what was involved in such applications. [101] I am confident that by the time the decision was made to advance the application, Ms XZ was well informed as to what was involved and that she herself, as was entirely proper, gave clear instructions to proceed the application. [102] I am...

6. LCRO 139/2017 ML v OP QR [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...advance the public interest (which include “protection of the public”), to maintain professional standards, to impose sanctions on a practitioner for breach of his/her duties and to provide scope for rehabilitation in appropriate cases”.51 [101] It is evident from the number of complaints about lawyers deducting fees received by Standards Committees, and review applications considered by this Office that uncertainty concerning the application of the relevant statutory and regulator...

7. LCRO 127/2017 EZ v UO [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...should be providing a copy of his whole file to Mr LG so that Mrs EZ can discover any additional documents on the file that were not disclosed as part of the original affidavit of documents”. Mr SB also emailed Mr LG expressing his concern. [101] It clearly was the plaintiff’s position that it continued to believe that Mrs EZ had failed to discover relevant documents, and that those documents continued to reside with Mr UO. Mr LG was put on notice that the plaintiff reserved its...

8. LCRO 95/2013 GI v JM (28 June 2017) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...with a draft set of proposed High Court proceedings. Some lawyers might argue that this could have provided additional leverage when Ms MO was at her most difficult to deal with, which seems to have been after the promising JSC in May 2011. [101] But that is speculative and the issue sits squarely in the area of strategy. Strategy is informed by skill, judgment and experience. Mr JM was said by both Mr B 21 See for example Mr GI’...

9. LCRO 182/2014 DL v SJ, GS and PQ [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...Committee’s finding of unsatisfactory conduct on the basis that Mr DL’s advice fell short of the standard of competence and diligence, that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent lawyer, is reversed. Rules breaches [101] The Committee concluded that Mr DL was guilty of three groups of rules breaches: (a) Breaches of rr 5, 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 (independent judgment and advice). (b) Breach of r 6.1 (acting for more than one client where their intere...

10. INZ v Soni [2018] NZIACDT 6 (9 March 2018) [pdf, 315 KB]

    BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2018] NZIACDT 6 Reference No: IACDT 004/17 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 BY The Registrar of Immigration Advisers Registrar BETWEEN Darren Calder (Immigration New Zealand) Complainant AND Gaurav Soni Adviser DECISION REPRESENTATION: Registrar: Ms F Moha