858 items matching your search terms
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2012] NZDT 10 BETWEEN AAV AND FIRST APPLICANT AAW SECOND APPLICANT AND ZZG RESPONDENT Date of Order: 28 June 2012 Referee: Referee Robertshawe ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that ZZM is to pay to KS Ltd the sum of $6,901.26 within 28 days. Facts [1] At approximately 5.00 a.m. on Tuesday, 20 September 2011, AAP collid
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2023] NZLCDT 17 LCDT 019/22, 020/22 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 Applicant AND ALWYN O’CONNOR Respondent DEPUTY CHAIR Dr J G Adams MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Ms J Gray Ms M Scholtens KC Prof D Scott Dr D Tulloch HEARING 1-3 May 2023 HELD AT Tribunals Unit, Wellington DATE OF DECISION 3 May 2
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA Court: Hearing: Appearances: IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC r=J-q of the Resource Management Act 1991 of a Notice of Motion under s 87G of the Act requesting the granting of resource consents for the necessary infrastructure and related activities associated with holding the America's Cup in Auckland PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED ('PANUKU') (ENV-2018-AKL-0
...respondent engaged in conduct that constituted misconduct in his professional capacity. He is charged in the alternative with conduct unbecoming of a barrister and solicitor (s 112(1)(b) of the 1982 Act). There is a further alternative charge of negligence or incompetence in his professional capacity (s 112(1)(c) of the 1982 Act). [3] The second charge is under s 241 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the 2006 Act). That charge alleges that he engaged in conduct after 1 Augu...
...reckless contravention of Rules 6.4 and 10.7 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”)); [ii] (in the alternative), misconduct under s 73(b) of the Act (seriously incompetent or seriously negligent real estate agency work). [b] Charge 2 [i] A further charge of misconduct under s 73(b) of the Act. [2] In the further alternative to Charges 1 and 2, and if the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mr Rankin is guilty of misconduct, t...
Report under section 87F of the Resource Management Act 1991 on a notified resource consent application by Panuku Development Auckland Limited for consent for the construction, occupation, use and maintenance of permanent and temporary infrastructure and undertaking of activities within the coastal marine area and on land, associated with the America’s Cup To: From: Panuku Development Auckland Limited (“the applicant”) Nicola Broadbent – Reporting Planner Auckland Co
...conduct in the first incident, and that he did lose control of his fork hoist and also in the incidents of breaking the water pipe and carrying the full LPG cylinder on his fork hoist. He also lost a load of preforms which demonstrated a degree of negligence on his part. The final act of pushing over a stack of boxes, when he could have used the long fork hoist, also demonstrated a lack of concern for safety. These issues all contributed to the circumstances that gave rise to his...
...02: Acts intended to cause injury 288 288 338 328 291 275 356 366 276 152 14% 15% 21% 18% 20% 17% 20% 24% 16% 12% 03: Sexual assault and related offences 515 500 485 787 636 676 682 506 791 617 24% 27% 30% 44% 45% 43% 39% 33% 44% 48% 04: Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons 89 85 46 68 42 46 47 31 43 19 4% 5% 3% 4% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 05: Abduction, harassment and other offences against the person 41 36 29 33 28 37 57 53 44 61 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 5% 06: Robbery, extortion a...
...practitioner in this matter relates to whether he is bound by the Summary of Facts in the Securities Act proceedings, to which he agreed, and upon which he was sentenced. In particular Mr Banbrook does not consider that he was guilty of “gross negligence” 1 Davidson v Auckland Standards Committee No. 3 [2013] NZHC 2315, Brown J. 2 Banbrook v R [2013] NZCA 525. 3 notwithstanding the remarks of the sentencing judge, His Hono...
...not including the watertightness of the hatch as a condition of the sale. WN Ltd was engaged in a negotiation. It was open to BT not to purchase the vessel without this special condition, but she chose not to. That is not evidence of WN Ltd’s negligence. [21] Again, I refer BT to her clear agreement to purchase the vessel in as is where is condition relying on her own judgement and not a survey. She made this decision after personally inspecting the vessel on 2 March 2022 albeit t...