Search Results

1. FS v UR LCRO 247 / 2010 (12 October 2011) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...considered a complaint by FS (the Applicant) against UR (the Practitioner). The Standards Committee resolved to take no further action on the complaint, and the Applicant seeks review of that decision. Background The complaint: [2] The Applicant filed a complaint against the Practitioner in mid September 2010. The complaint concerned some work undertaken by the Practitioner concerning his personal banking relationships in Auckland that be believed had “turned sour” as a...

2. Griffiths & Anor v Plaster Systems Ltd & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 31 [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...[2012] NZHC 1167. 13 High Court Rules 14.3 and 14.5. 14 Above n 13. 15 Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Limited [2010] NZCA 400, (2010) 24 NZTC 24,500. 16 High Court Rules 14.3 and 14.5, note Mr Wood on direction filed recalculated costs charged in accordance with the High Court category 2B scale and I have accepted his calculations. 11 ORDER [35] I order Max Curteis Griffiths and Jillian Margaret Griffiths to pay William James Thomson th...

3. Byrnes v ACC [2014] NZACA 16 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...THE CASE ON APPEAL [17] The Authority received from the appellant submissions (20 February 2014), a paginated bundle of documents, a bundle of authorities (and further loose authorities) and a schedule of Orders in Council. [18] The respondent filed submissions (16 April 2014), a paginated bundle of documents and a paginated casebook. At the Authority’s request, further 4 evidence was produced by the respondent immediately prior to the hearing. [19] The parties’ conte...

4. XH v BB LCRO 237 / 2012 (26 June 2013) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...because they are Fijian Indians, adding “This is NZ, not Fiji”.11 Considerations [23] The review process provides an opportunity for the complaints to be considered anew. I have reviewed all of the information on the Standards Committee file and the information provided for the review. [24] The question for review is whether the Practitioner was in breach of any professional obligation when he sent to the Applicant’s father a copy of his letter to the Applicant, and w...

5. Complaints Assessment Committee 409 v Andrew Rankin [2017] NZREADT 78 [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...compensation. [40] Pursuant to s 113 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, which sets out appeal 2017 NZREADT 78 - Rankin - Penalty rights. Any appeal must be filed in the High Court within 20 working days of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision is served. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. _________________ Hon P J Andrews C...

6. Setter v Hewitt - Lots 1 & 4 of DP 374627 and Lot 3 DP 374627 (2010) 5 Takitimu MB 239 (5 TKT 239) [pdf, 72 KB]

   ...of the roadway, being part of Lots 1, 3 & 4 DP 374627 shall be held free from its reservation as a roadway. c. Pursuant to section 316 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, the Court lays out a new roadway in accordance with the sketch plan filed with the Court by Mr Brian Setter. As with the stopped part of the roadway, this roadway will be in the nature of an easement. [28] These orders are conditional upon: a. the applicant obtaining consent from the territorial authorit...

7. Dyall v CAC 403 & Lantz [2016] NZREADT 41 [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...inquire into the complaint.6 The Committee found that the second complaint was vexatious and not made in good faith, meritless, and was simply an attempt to revisit the same complaints as made previously, which had been dismissed.7 [10] Dr Dyall filed an appeal to this Tribunal on 7 January 2016. Appeal hearing [11] At the appeal hearing we heard evidence and submissions from Dr Dyall. We also heard evidence from Mr Lantz, who was cross examined by Dr Dyall. We then heard s...

8. [2016] NZSSAA 70 (11 July 2016) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...suspend payment from 7 April. [33] It seems most unfortunate that this delay occurred, particularly in the light of the appellant advising Centrelink of his plans in January. [34] It appears that the Ministry took action on the appellant’s file on 16 March and 20 March but did not suspend the appellant’s benefit until 1 April. [35] We accept the Ministry may not always be able to immediately action advice which affects a benefit but there has been no explanation about why...

9. Tuumotooa v Tangilanu [2014] NZIACDT 101 (01 October 2014) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...Conduct’s duties of care, diligence, respect, and professionalism, and the obligation to provide timely updates. [4] This decision was initially issued in error. Counsel for the complainants presented submissions, which did not become part the file, due to an administrative error. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not consider the submissions. I am satisfied a party was not heard through an error in the Tribunal’s processes, and the decision that was issued can have no legal effect for t...

10. JB v RW LCRO 87 / 2011 (1 February 2012) [pdf, 92 KB]

    ...S were nevertheless included in all decision making concerning Trust matters. That the Practitioner included them is apparent from all of the (significant volume of) correspondence to both of the sisters (copies were on the Standards Committee file). That is to say, there is nothing to indicate that the Practitioner, when engaged in Trust matters, did not include both the Applicant and S in the correspondence. Administration of the estate [11] The Applicant explained that t...