Search Results

1. LCRO 96/2017 AA v BB (29 November 2019) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...The footnote to the rule explains that the words “misleading or deceptive” are “… identical to those used in the Fair Trading Act 1986 and lawyers are referred to texts and authorities on that legislation for further guidance”.38 [110] The rule is “to ensure” that in operating his or her business, a lawyer “does not mislead clients or prospective clients as to the nature of his or her business”.39 Applications of the rule concern “matters such as the lawyer’s...

2. LCRO 24/2017 HC v DASH (24 January 2020) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...that he was simply providing advice of a general nature, indication that Das was proceeding with plans to buy and relocate a 21 home should have alerted him to the immediate need to inform Das that he should seek independent legal advice. [110] Mr HC says that he received no response from Mr and Mrs Dash to his 25 April correspondence. He says however that he was aware that Das had read the correspondence. [111] Mr HC says that on 17 September 2013, he received a telephone ca...

3. LCRO 68/2018 TY v HG (29 November 2019) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...which Mr TY complains, I find that rather than to be characterised as allegations of the commission of offences, they should be seen as requests by Mr HG for some inquiry into whether Company B may have breached the Commerce Act 1986 or the FTA. [110] Language such as “there may well be Fair Trading Act concerns” and “it is submitted the Commission should review and address the applicants’ Commerce Act and FTA duties” is, it can reasonably be said, indicative of an endeavo...

4. [2020] NZEmpC 43 A Labour Inspector v Matangi Berry Farm Ltd [pdf, 423 KB]

   ...circumstances and issues of proportionality would follow. 9 Such as Preet, above n 7, which involved a breach of three statutes in respect of five employees; A Labour Inspector v Prabh Ltd [2018] NZEmpC 110, (2018) 15 NZELR 1171 which involved a breach of three statutes in respect of three employees; Labour Inspector v Victoria 88 Ltd (T/A Watershed Bar and Restaurant) [2018] NZEmpC 26, [2018] ERNZ 88 which involved a breach of one...

5. Rata - Whataarakai No 1 Roadway and Lot 1 Deposited Plan 374627 [2020] Chief Judge's MB 74 (2020 CJ 74) [pdf, 432 KB]

   ...Tappin on 16 December 1929. 41. At 106 Napier MB 214 (13 November 1972) the Court confirmed an alienation of Whataarakai 1D. The land was sold to the Setter family for a consideration of $24,316. Supporting minutes are recorded at 106 Napier MB 110 (2 August 1972) and at 105 Napier MB 309 – 310 (4 March 1972). I note that the Whataarakai 1D (and Tarewa A1) where sold to the Setter family by consent of the owners (except for Hori Hutana who was deceased) to pay off debts accumul...

6. Li v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC), Huang, Chae, Donkin and Barfoot & Thompson Ltd (Mairangi Bay) [2018] NZREADT 52 [pdf, 335 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2018] NZREADT 52 READT 041/17 IN THE MATTER OF An appeal under section 111 of the Act BETWEEN RUNFANG LI Applicant AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC ) First Respondent AND HUA HUANG, Second Respondent AND KYUNG SUN CHAE, Third Respondent AND EMMA DONKIN Fourth Respondent AND BARFOOT & THOMPSON LTD (MAIRANGI BAY) Fifth Respondent Hearing: 2 Augus

7. Te Manutukutuku Issue 30 [pdf, 8.9 MB]

   ...moumou tangata ki te po e! TE MANUTUKUTUKU TE MANUTUKUTUKU is the official newsletter of the Waitangi Tribunal Division and is published every second month. Address all correspondence to: The Waitangi Tribunal Division, Seabridge House, 110 Featherston Street, PO Box 5022, DX8101, Wellington. Tel: (04) 499 3666 Fax: (04) 499 3676 Edited by JULIET ASHTON Produced by MANA PRODUCTIONS LTD Art direction & sub-editing by GRay CLaPHaM M E D I APR 0 J E C T S DES I G...

8. Te Manutukutuku Issue 29 [pdf, 9 MB]

   ...dominated by Treaty and Tribunal issues. 2 TE MANUTUKUTUKU TE MANUTUKUTUKU is the official newsletter of the Waitangi Tribunal and is published evelY second month. Address all correspondence to The Waitangi Tribunal, Seabridge House, 110 Featherston Street, PO Box 5022, DX8101, Wellington. Tel: (04) 499 3666 Fax: (04) 499 3676 Edited by JULIET ASHTON Produced by MANA PRODUCTIONS LTD Art direction & sub-editing by GRay CLaPHaM M E D I APR 0 J E C T S DES I G...

9. [2021] NZACC 10 - Monk v ACC (12 January 2021) [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...history, (ii) symptom and profile, (iii) signs on examination, (iv) blood tests, (v) hair test, (vi) 6 hour DMPS urine test, (vii) response to treatment, and not just the hair lead result. [37] In his conclusions, Dr Wojcik placed reliance on a 110 symptom questionnaire that he had arranged for Mr Monk to complete. Mr Monk was recorded as having had a score of 82 which, according to Dr Wojcik, was significantly higher than the mean of 36.7 for healthy control patients. Dr Wojcik st...

10. [2022] NZREADT 4 - CX v REAA (5 April 2022) [pdf, 324 KB]

    ...the licensees did not have a copy of the lease. There is no other explanation for the licensees’ email at 12:16 pm. We agree with Mr Tian that the solicitor was the only person with the lease (though she did not initially realise that). [110] It follows that the licensees did not draft cl 34 knowing it to be contrary to the lease. [111] The next issue is whether the appellant was told by the licensees that they did not have the lease. The appellant’s evidence is inconsi...