Search Results

1. LCRO 50/2020 M and N PQ v WR (23 April 2021) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...(f) Mr WR had failed to take sufficient steps to source evidence of Mr SF’s continuing involvement that was highly relevant to their case; and (g) this failure, together with Mr WR’s failure to record the mediation conference, constituted negligence on his part; and (h) Mr WR had delayed progressing their case in order to allow Mr SF opportunity to mitigate problems that Mr SF had caused; and (i) Mr WR’s failure to consider the second limb of their claim at mediation, “co...

2. Kendal v Sherbourne LCRO 69 / 2009 (19 August 2009) [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...unbecoming. Misconduct was generally considered to be conduct: of sufficient gravity to be termed ‘reprehensible’ (or ‘inexcusable’, ‘disgraceful’ or ‘deplorable’ or ‘dishonourable’) or if the default can be said to arise from negligence such negligence must be either reprehensible or be of such a degree or so frequent as to reflect on his fitness to practise. (Atkinson v Auckland District Law Society NZLPDT, 15 August 1990; Complaints Committee No 1 of the Auck...

3. Philpott v Zderich [2011] NZWHT Auckland 16 [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...Messrs Ryan and Ferris, both company directors, personally installed the Insulclad cladding system and that both are personally responsible for the primary and the secondary defects. [6] Ms Philpott sues all three remaining respondents in negligence, contending that each are jointly and severally liable for the full costs of a reclad and associated losses. The total amount of damages claimed is $376,590. [7] One of the key challenges the Tribunal faces in determining...

4. [2021] NZREADT 36 - Lindsay-Penalty (13 July 2021) [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...TRIBUNAL (Charge and Penalty) ____________________________________________________________________ Introduction [1] Mr Lindsay has admitted two charges of misconduct: [a] First charge: under s 73(b) (seriously incompetent or seriously negligent real estate agency work) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (“the Act”), in relation to his failure to properly supervise a salesperson; and [b] Second charge: under s 73(c) (wilful or reckless contravention of a provision of...

5. AG v ZQ LCRO 204/2011 (14 February 2014) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...relatively high. ‘Misconduct’ under that Act is conduct sufficiently serious to be termed ‘reprehensible’ (or ‘inexcusable’, ‘disgraceful’ or ‘deplorable’ or ‘dishonourable’), or if the default can be said to arise from negligence such negligence must be either reprehensible or be of 11 such a degree or so frequent as to reflect on his fitness to practise7.8 The alternative test for ‘conduct unbecoming’ is whether the conduct is acceptable accordin...

6. [2021] NZACC 120 - Hoeberechts v ACC (3 August 2021) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...Hoeberechts lodged an application for a lump sum/ independence allowance for the right scaphoid fracture. On 11 March 2018, Ms Hoeberechts’s GP, Dr Mark Vaughan, completed a medical certificate in support of the application. Dr Vaughan noted “negligible change of functional impairment, or pain over the past year”. [13] On 16 March 2018, the Corporation wrote to Ms Hoeberechts, advising that she was eligible to be assessed for a lump sum payment for the following injuries (al...

7. UI & I Ltd v S Ltd & C Ltd [2023] NZDT 750 (16 December 2023) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...of its premises or of the Truck, nor other property damage or loss at its premises. 14. Given these factors and highlighting the absence of specific instructions/enquiry from I Ltd, and the absence of evidence suggesting S Ltd was careless or negligent in its handling of the Truck or Engine 1, I am persuaded in all these circumstances S Ltd has done what was reasonable in terms of care. 15. For the avoidance of doubt, I am also satisfied any claim under carriage of goods provision...

8. [2024] NZEnvC 209 Bettley-Stamef Partnership v Waikato District Council [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...is anticipated that each lot would have the ability to dispose of stormwater and wastewater on-site. In addition to the economic assessment, the transport assessment demonstrates that the impact of the proposal on the transport network will be negligible. Any development will require a resource consent, which provides the opportunity to further avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects on the environment. 5 RMA s32(6) Section 6 There are no section 6 matters of relev...

9. Friesen v Accident Compensation Corporation (Issue estoppel) [2025] NZACC 134 (25 August 2025) [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought fon•vard, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of their case. The plea of res judicata applies, 2 Van Heeren v Kidd [2017] 3 NZLR 141. 3 Talyancich v Index Developments Ltd [1992] 3 NZLR 28 (CA). 4 At [123] and [147]....

10. Lowe and Ors as Trustees of the Vivienne Hicks Family Trust v Morrison [2011] NZWHT Auckland 27 [pdf, 263 KB]

    ............................... 9 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 9 The claim against the First Respondent .................................................... 10 WAS THE COUNCIL NEGLIGENT IN ISSUING THE BUILDING CONSENT, THE CODE OF COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE AND CARRYING OUT INSPECTIONS? ........................................................................................... 13 The Consent .......................