Search Results

1. Johnson v Canterbury/Westland Standards Committee 3 - Outcome of appeal of decisions [2018] NZLCDT 5 and [2018] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 439 KB]

   ...valuation, financial and tax implications with his clients. 13 Bartle v GE Custodians Ltd [2010] 1 NZLR 802 (HC). 14 Canterbury / Westland Standards Committee 3 v Johnson [2018] NZLCDT 5 at [106], [110]. Again, the relevant findings of the Tribunal were that Mr Johnson’s duties were not limited to advising the Trustees on the mechanics of the transaction and included ensuring that the Trustees were aware of their duties...

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

   ...practised as a lawyer both in New Zealand and Australia, although in Australia, 23 where he resides, his practice has been exclusively in immigration. He agreed that he was an experienced businessman, but that he was unfamiliar with litigation. [110] Mr XL acknowledged some awareness of limitation issues when [Company A] filed its District Court proceedings in July 2012 and that this was a reason for electing that jurisdiction in which to proceed with its claim; however, on [Comp...

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

   ...it probable that Ms DM’s anxiety to achieve a prompt settlement in order to avoid financial penalties, had put her under some pressure and possibly made her less receptive to appreciating the difficulties that Ms TC was striving to overcome. [110] Ms TC’s confidence in the Committee decision was shaken by what she considered to have been a number of demonstrable errors made by the Committee. [111] I have examined each of the concerns identified by Ms TC. [112] The Committee note...

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

   ...formally authorised Mr HM “to act on [her] behalf in relation to [the purchase]”, and emailed that authorisation to Ms NL. Ms NL had required this, and told Mr HM on 22 May that she could not deal with him directly without that authorisation. [110] Without apparently questioning the need for it, Mr HM arranged for Ms Z to prepare and send the authorisation to Ms NL. [111] I consider that from 22 May 2015 Mr HM was on notice that, at the very least, Ms NL may not be, or was no...

5. [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

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

   ...that Mr DN failed to adequately advise Ms EJ. [108] Ms RY cannot speak for Ms EJ. [109] Ms RY provided a copy of correspondence written by Ms EJ in November 2012 and suggests that this correspondence corroborates her account of events. [110] It does not. That correspondence provides no helpful insight into the meeting that took place with Mr DN in 2008, nor does it provide any explanation of Ms EJ’s understanding of the arrangement for recording the ownership of the propert...

7. Abernethy v Coughlan [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...in that capacity. Accordingly I find that Mr Humphrey was in breach of his duty of care as project manager in not taking steps as project manager to ensure the workmanship on site was adequate. Was Mr Humphrey liable as a developer? [110] I do not accept that because he was a director of Stockdale, who managed the project as above for Stockdale, that that made Mr Humphrey a developer. Stockdale had no chief executive, so the directors acted on its behalf. But that does no...

8. 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

9. Easton v Mayers [pdf, 298 KB]

   CLAIM NO: TRI-2007-101-00003 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN Craig Easton and Tania Easton Claimant AND Brian Mayers First Respondent AND Nelson City Council Second Respondent AND Murray Pine Third Respondent AND Cathryn Grace Leov Fourth Respondent (now removed) AND Susan Margaret Leov Fifth Respondent (now removed) Dates of Hearing: 17, 18, 19 Decembe

10. ENV-2016-CHC-000047 Blueskin Energy Limited v Dunedin City Council - Evidence - Mark Walrond [pdf, 1.7 MB]

    ...significant cover of volcanic rock is present based on the investigation work and adjacent mapping. Assessment of revised proposal 7. I understand that Blueskin Energy now wish to amend the application to provide for one 3 MW turbine of approximately 110 m height. I have been provided with the specifications of the Enercon E83 turbine and have reviewed the foundation requirements as set out in the foundation data sheet supplied by the manufacturer. The required foundation is c...