Search Results

1. Final name suppression June 2019 [xlsx, 100 KB]

   ...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...

2. Auckland Standards Committee v Banbrook [2014] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...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...

3. BT v WN Ltd [2023] NZDT 14 (19 April 2023) [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...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...

4. TC v NU [2023] NZDT 707 (19 December 2023) [pdf, 194 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 707 APPLICANT TC RESPONDENT NU The Tribunal orders: NU is to pay TC $759.00 on or before 31 January 2024. Reasons [1] TC claims from NU the cost of removing a large tree branch from his, TC’s, driveway. The branch had fallen from a tree on the neighbouring property, owned by NU. [2] TC said that on the morning of Wednesday 15 Oc

5. [2021] NZREADT 55 – Lammas v Real Estate Agents Authority (6 December 2021) [pdf, 340 KB]

   ...the complaint, though it is accepted that the general concept of privacy as viewed by the public is an important consideration. What has to be kept in mind is the statutory definition of unsatisfactory conduct, or even misconduct. Aside from negligence or the breach of any rule, this is about how reasonable members of the public and agents of good standing would view the event.15 [131] In terms of what the public would view as an infringement of “privacy”, we note the foll...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Halse [2021] NZLCDT 7 (19 March 2021) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...6.1.1. Overall, on the papers, we had little concern about the practitioner’s having acted for multiple parties in the transaction. However, despite an expert opinion suggesting that the practitioner’s actions in the first charge might be negligible, we regarded his failure to alert the complainant (and the complainant’s business entities) that he was personally a contributor to the loans, even for the small initial sum of $15,000, as a failure that could be proven or establis...

7. Wellington Standards Committee v Twigley [2016] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 601 KB]

   ...regulations made under the Act: s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act; or in the alternative (b) Unsatisfactory conduct that is not so gross, wilful, or reckless as to amount to misconduct pursuant to section 241(b) of the Act; or in the alternative (c) Negligence or incompetence in his professional capacity, and the negligence or incompetence has been of such a degree as to reflect on his fitness to practise or as to bring his profession into disrepute pursuant to s 241(c) of the Act. The pa...

8. Proactive-release-20240715-CAB-Regulatory-Systems-Justice-Amendment-Bill_Final.pdf [pdf, 9.6 MB]

   I N C O N F I D E N C E 1 I N C O N F I D E N C E In Confidence Office of the Minister of Justice Office of the Associate Minister of Justice Cabinet Social Outcomes Committee Regulatory Systems (Justice) Amendment Bill Package: Policy Proposals Proposal 1 We seek agreement to amend legislation that impacts the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry’s) regulatory systems through a package of four associated bills: 1.1 the Regulatory Systems (Courts Improvement) Amendment Bi

9. Recommendations recap - issue 9 [pdf, 865 KB]

   1 January 2015 and 30 June 2015 9 2 Coroners have a duty to identify any lessons learned from the deaths referred to them that might help prevent such deaths happening in the future. In order to publicise these lessons, the findings and recommendations of most cases are open to the public. Recommendations Recap identifies and summarises all coronial recommendations that have been made over the relevant period

10. LCRO 94/2019 EL v UD (15 May 2020) [pdf, 190 KB]

    ...had failed to alert the Council to a judgement issued by the [City B] High Court in October 2013 which had significant relevance for the Council’s task of determining relevant and appropriate standards for building safety; and (c) proof of negligence was established by errors that had been identified in the information considered by the Council; and (d) Mr UD had failed to observe that the introduction to the [Company B] report clearly identified the report as being in draft for...