Search Results

1. [2020] NZEnvC 170 Smith v Young.pdf [pdf, 7.8 MB]

   ...perm length of wall W~ have completed an addllional check on the shear and moment demand below the ground surface lo connrm !hat the cornposlte timber ancl concrete strength has suttlclent capacity. • Shear demand 2.8 m below ground surface V1,.,101•1_grouni' - 44. 71<N perm length of wall • Moment demand 2 m below ground surface Mbplow_Jlrour.c1" - 40.2 l<Nm per Iii l~ngth of wall 2.3.1 Timber Plies The proposed de11ign is for 5.5 rn long, 325 mm diameter timbe...

2. LCRO 74/2020 NS v AD (29 January 2021) [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...once the work visa was granted. Ms AD was anxious to remain permanently in New Zealand. [100] Although the work visa was automatically extended, this only occurred on the lodging of a completed application. For that, legal work was necessary. [101] This was largely carried out by Ms H, with oversight by Mr NS, and unpaid assistance from Ms G and to a lesser extent, Dr S. [102] There is nothing to suggest that the immigration work in relation to the work visa application, was any...

3. LCRO 156/2016 KZ v XL on behalf of [Company A] (18 January 2019) [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...early July 2013) there were time pressures to prepare a response to the Council’s application to strike out the District Court proceedings — [Company A]’s affidavits were due to be filed and served in that Court by 15 July 2013. 21 [101] [Company A] had some concerns about its exposure in relation to the application to strike out the District Court proceedings, and after speaking to both directors of [Company A], Ms KZ said that she received instructions to try and navigat...

4. LCRO 034/2017 TC v DM (30 April 2019) [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...preference to settle as soon as possible, thus avoiding the possibility of her incurring a penalty for late settlement in the form of a requirement to compensate the purchaser for rent the purchaser would have received from the sitting tenant. [101] Whilst Ms DM had advised Ms TC of the agreement to extend the settlement date, she had not provided a specific date for Ms TC to work to. Ms TC was understandably aware of the difficulties that could arise if there was any uncertainty...

5. LCRO 240/2016 HM v NL (28 November 2018) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...[100] The reference to a partnership ought immediately to have triggered enquiry by Ms NL. Was this a business partnership? Was this a de facto partnership? What contributions were each making to the partnership (whatever its nature)? 22 [101] Ms NL describes Mr HM as merely being Ms Z’s agent, and she argues that this arrangement was no different from any other where an agent is involved. She gives the example of a real estate agent acting as a broker for either vendor o...

6. [2020] NZREADT 34 - Hammond v Real Estate Agents Authority (11 August 2020) [pdf, 386 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2020] NZREADT 34 READT 002/2020 IN THE MATTER OF An appeal under section 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN TERESA and BRIAN HAMMOND Appellants AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 520) First Respondent AND SONIA TAFILIPEPE Second Respondent Hearing: 23 July 2020, at Christchurch Tribunal: Hon P J Andrews, Chairperson Mr G Denley, Mem

7. LCRO 203/2017 HI v JK (6 August 2020) [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...undertaken, the payment in question should relate to a fixed fee, and an invoice should have been issued. The Committee concluded that Mr JK’s fees were to be fixed, and acknowledged that at the time of payment, Mr JK had not issued an invoice. [101] At the hearing, Mr JK was emphatic that he had informed Mr HI prior to meeting with him at court that he charged a fixed fee for a first attendance at court. [102] Mr JK explained that this fee was to include work in: (a) meeting w...

8. LCRO 104/2019 RY v DN (1 May 2020) [pdf, 273 KB]

   ...work done, is a reference to “discussing ownership arrangements with you”. 20 [100] Mr DN attached to his reporting letter a copy of the certificate of title recording the parties’ respective shares in the ownership of the property. [101] The documentary evidence supports Mr DN’s position. [102] Mr and Mrs EW, being present at the September 2008 meeting, are able to provide their recollections of what transpired. [103] Mr DN says that Mr and Mrs EW have verified all th...

9. Abernethy v Coughlan [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...time as a site manager. [100] Mr Humphrey said he obtained quotes, for the windows etc, and arranged delivery dates. He did a lot of the work as and when required, a lot of it on his cell phone. He would telephone the suppliers. [101] When the problem was discovered with the water flowing from 3 Pupuke Road, the Council instructed what the remedy was and a drain layer was engaged. [102] Concerning the question of whether anybody was responsible for the quality o...

10. Chee v Stareast Investment Ltd [pdf, 97 KB]

    IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2008-100-000091 BETWEEN JOSEPH CHEE and MARGARET CHEE Claimants AND STAREAST INVESTMENT LIMITED First Respondent AND MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent AND PATRICK HUNG Third Respondent AND T.Q. CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND BRIAN CHARLES TAYLOR Fifth Respondent AND SPOUTING AND STEEL ROOFING WORLD LIMITED Sixth Respondent AND RAYMOND PHILLIP BROCKLISS Seventh Respondent AND CSR BUILDIN