Search Results

1. AEJ Ltd v ZVM [2013] NZDT 304 (23 September 2013) [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...warning road users of stock on the road. [8] I have had regard to ZVM’s belief that the driver of the truck may have contributed to the collision by his speed but I do not find this supported on the evidence. ZVM’s neighbour had parked his vehicle with lights flashing and was waving a torch. This drew the driver’s attention to the Good Samaritan’s actions and actually distracted him from the stock on the road. [9] I find that BQ’s driving did not contribute to the i...

2. Three strikes offences December 2018 [xlsx, 227 KB]

   ...offences 3 33 30 60 62 40 44 49 38 2% 4% 2% 5% 5% 3% 3% 3% 2% 02: Acts intended to cause injury 37 254 349 293 300 321 356 389 395 23% 28% 27% 22% 24% 25% 25% 26% 26% 03: Sexual assault and related offences 44 280 456 571 485 507 526 582 582 28% 31% 35% 43% 38% 39% 37% 38% 38% 04: Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 05: Abduction, harassment and other offences against the person 4 21 45 54 45 37 55 65 58 3% 2% 3% 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 06: Robbery...

3. Whiles-Clarry v Standing [2011] NZIACDT 25 (8 August 2011) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...complaint [1] In a decision dated 30 June 2011, the Tribunal upheld a complaint in this matter. [2] The facts and background are set out in the earlier decision. The three elements of the complaint that were upheld were, in outline: [2.1] The Adviser negligently failed to provide adequate advice to the Complainants when they migrated to New Zealand. The decision found: [2.1.1] The Adviser had an incorrect understanding of the material policy requirements, [2.1.2] Failed to review h...

4. [2022] NZACC 25 - Teavae v ACC (1 march 2022) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...or five attacks nearly every day. … It is fairly clear that she is suffering from complex partial seizures, almost certainly with a focus in the temporal lobe. … [4] On 12 August 1994, Ms Teavae suffered a diffuse head injury in a motor vehicle accident in England, and she was admitted to hospital. She was seen for neuropsychological evaluation on 18 and 25 August 1994. Following the second evaluation, A M Nielsen, a trainee Neuropsychologist, reported that Ms Teavae was,...

5. EQ & MC v IJ Ltd & SD [2022] NZDT 146 (31 August 2022) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...Gary Spence [2017] NZHC 398. Negligent misstatement 3. In relation to EQ and MC’s alternative cause of action, negligent misstatement, the Disputes Tribunal does not have jurisdiction for claims relating to negligent misstatement. 4. Negligence (which includes negligent misstatement) is a tort. Under s10(1)(c) the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 the Disputes Tribunal’s tort jurisdiction is limited to a claim in respect of: a. the destruction or loss of any property; b. an...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 209 McLennan v New Zealand Post Ltd [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...and extent of the remedy of reinstatement. At the heart of this matter were safety issues and the Court should be slow in reaching a different conclusion to that of the employer on safety issues. … [48] The situation in Villegas related to negligent use of a fork-hoist. Several breaches were established. The employer considered that when these were considered cumulatively they demonstrated a lack of concern for safety and led to its decision to dismiss.

7. LCRO 144/2016 QT v UF (24 August 2018) [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...circumstances of this review Mr QT has been found by the Committee to have contravened rr 6 and 6.1, which emphasises that obligation and duty by prohibiting a lawyer from acting: for more than 1 client in any circumstances where there is a more than negligible risk that the lawyer may be unable to discharge the obligations owed to one or more of the clients. (b) Discussion [80] The maximum fine available under the Act is $15,000.21 Although in setting a penalty for Mr QT’s c...

8. [2021] NZEnvC 160 Auckland Council [pdf, 609 KB]

   ...I410.11.1 text that PC46 was overlaid on and the operative text of the Appendix as amended by PC4 are minor and administrative in nature.35 [20] In terms of the actual effect of the non-compliances, the Council submitted in this case it is negligible. That is because of the nature of the changes PC4 made to 31 Amended application dated 5 October 2021 at [5]. 32 Memorandum dated 9 September 2021 at [26]. 33 Re Ashburton District Council [2012] NZEnvC 188 at [11]. 34 Memoran...

9. [2021] NZEnvC 160 Auckland Council [pdf, 609 KB]

   ...I410.11.1 text that PC46 was overlaid on and the operative text of the Appendix as amended by PC4 are minor and administrative in nature.35 [20] In terms of the actual effect of the non-compliances, the Council submitted in this case it is negligible. That is because of the nature of the changes PC4 made to 31 Amended application dated 5 October 2021 at [5]. 32 Memorandum dated 9 September 2021 at [26]. 33 Re Ashburton District Council [2012] NZEnvC 188 at [11]. 34 Memoran...

10. LCRO 103/2021 & LCRO 58/2022, LCRO 104/2021 and LCRO 105/2021 GS v ABC Ltd & HY, [Law Firm A] v ABC Ltd & HY and SW v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (24 November 2022) [pdf, 595 KB]

    ...positions. [53] Mr OX was critical of the process that had been followed by the Committee in the course of conducting its investigation. It was his contention that: (a) the issues engaged by the complaint were more appropriately addressed as a negligence claim rather than through the vehicle of a conduct complaint; and (b) an “on the papers” hearing was unsuitable; and (c) the reasons provided by the Committee were “utterly inadequate”; and (d) the Committee had fail...