Search Results

1. [2024] NZREADT 41 – CAC 2103 v Jones Lang Laselle Ltd (29 October 2024) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...the Act and the Audit Regulations by failing to record funds in the trust ledger and reconcile accounts. The Tribunal imposed a penalty of $7,500. [42] They also referred to the case of Burnett v Real Estate Agents Authority,8 where Mr Burnett appealed against the Committee’s finding of unsatisfactory conduct under s 72 of the Act. Mr Burnett’s agency had failed to comply with reg 15 of the Audit Regulations. Mr Burnett had failed to send reconciliations for almost every mont...

2. [2025] NZEmpC 15 TradeZone Industrial Group Ltd v Stanton [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...entered into the settlement agreement if it had been aware of the alleged breaches, s 149(3)(ab) of the Act states the terms of a settlement agreement may not be cancelled under ss 36 to 40 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. The Court of Appeal made obiter remarks on that provision in TUV v Chief of New Zealand Defence Force:7 We note in passing that s 149(3)(ab) may have the surprising, and presumably unintended, consequence of preventing cancellation of a settlement ag...

3. Speaking about cultural background at sentencing: section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...sentenced. What little use there was of the provision appeared to be concentrated in a few courts. There has been little information collected about the use and effect of section 16 since this study. 1.4 Interpretation of section 16 A judgement of the Appeal Court in 19877 has provided significant interpretation of section 16. In the District Court, the appellant had applied under section 16 for members of Mätua Whängai to be able to address the Court. The District Court Judge had held t...

4. [2016] NZEnvC 051 Craddock Farms Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 2 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Court: Decision [2016] NZEnvC C->5\ ENV-2015-AKL- 000039 IN THE MATTER of an appeal under s120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN CRADDOCK FARMS LIMITED Appellant AND THE AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge C J Thompson Environment Commissioner K A Edmonds Deputy Environment Commissioner D A Kernohan Hearing: at Auckland 26,27, 30 November, 1,3 December 2015 Site inspections 2 December 2015 Final submissions 9 February 201...

5. [2022] NZEnvC 060 Eden-Epsom Residential Protection Society Inc v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...April 2022 _________________________________________________________________ DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ON PROPOSED PLAN CHANGE A: Request for plan change refused. B: Costs reserved REASONS Introduction The Society had appealed a decision of a majority of independent hearing commissioners approving Proposed Private Plan Change 21 (PPC21) to the Auckland Unitary Plan operative in part (AUP). The plan change was to enable expansion and intensification of deve...

6. LCRO 40/2023 DG v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (13 March 2024) [pdf, 497 KB]

   ...review generally [56] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:3 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for tha...

7. Trustees Executors Ltd as trustee for the Simpson Family Trust v Wellington City Council [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...discovered, the value of the property is unaffected and the cause of action has not accrued. In the leading judgment Tipping J refers to Hamlin and says: Hamlin’s case [39] The best starting point lies with the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council in the Hamlin litigation, which concerned latent damage to buildings.21 In his judgment in the Court of Appeal in that case, McKay J said:22 Page 26 “The ordinary time limit for an action in contract...

8. Smith v Wellington City Council [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...the High Court that adjudicators did not have the power to make awards of general damages. This was in a judgment by Stevens J in Hartley v Balemi & Ors, Auckland High Court, CIV 2006-404-002589, 29 March 2007. This judgment considered an appeal against a WHRS adjudication Determination, in which the learned judge held that general damages claims for mental stress did not fit comfortably within the overall scheme of the WHRS legislation and its underlying policy consideration...

9. Tata v Katipa - Waiwhakaata 3E4C Lot 2A [2018] 170 Waikato Maniapoto MB 123 (170 WMN 123) [pdf, 692 KB]

   ...application for non-party discovery against ANZ. The active respondents opposed the application. ANZ did not respond. On 19 May 2016, I issued a written decision granting that order.22 [23] On 27 May 2016, the active respondents sought leave to appeal against that decision. On 4 July 2016, I issued a minute raising whether that decision was a provisional or preliminary determination within the meaning of s 59 of the Act, and whether I was able to grant leave to appeal.23 The a...

10. LCRO 122/2020 G & P LN v Todd Whitcombe and RC findings & publication decisions (4 May 2021 & 22 June 2021) [pdf, 397 KB]

    ...nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court in several judgments, in which it has said of the process of review under the Act: … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for t...