Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v PL [2016] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...that the case called for a deterrent penalty when regard was had to the serious consequences that flowed from the respondent’s failure and in order to meet the legislative requirements for the maintenance of professional standards and consumer protection. [6] Counsel further submitted that the penalty imposed ought to serve as a reminder to all practitioners that the consequences of failing in one’s discovery duties can be far-reaching. It was said practitioners must be proacti...

2. IAA v van Zyl [2012] NZIACDT 59 (11 September 2012) [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...support of the submission. [20] Mr van Zyl produced a written statement in which he explained: [20.1] At the time, he genuinely believed he was complying with the requirements. [20.2] He approached the role he had in reviewing the application with care and professionalism. [20.3] Mr K was highly educated, and Mr van Zyl believed he would have the skills to ensure the information he supplied was accurate. Accordingly, the lack of personal contact to emphasise these issues would not h...

3. RK v LP LCRO 292 / 2011 (1 October 2012) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...position: a. This is a commercial matter; b. The Practitioner was entitled to take a position on behalf of his client; c. The Practitioner was at all times acting on the instructions of his client; d. The Practitioner does not owe any duty of care to the Applicant; e. The franchise agreement required the franchisee to grant a general release on the transfer of the business (in clause 18.11); f. The Applicant was separately advised; g. There was no undue pressure to sign the t...

4. Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 181 [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...Corporation has received all information necessary to enable it to calculate and make the payment. Again, at least eight Judgments have considered and ruled on this issue. [21] As to d, Judge Spiller reached his conclusions after demonstrably careful and painstaking analysis. This ground is without foundation. [22] Measured against the criteria set out in O’Neill,5 therefore, none of the applicant’s questions of law are capable of bona fide and serious argument. [23] And as...

5. [2019] NZEnvC 063 Ohau Protection Society Incorporated v Waitaki District Council [pdf, 3.1 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2019] NZEnvC 63 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act OHAU PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED (ENV-2018-CHC-005) Appe"ant WAITAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Hearing: In Chambers at Christchurch Date of Decision: 8 April 2019 Date of Issue: 8 April 2019 DECISION OF THE ENVIR...

6. [2020] NZIACDT 44 - Registrar v Yoon (8 October 2020) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...person; and 1.2 failing to personally obtain and carry out the client’s informed instructions. 11 2 Alternatively, the adviser breached the Code by – 2.1 acting in an unprofessional manner and failing to exercise diligence and due care in relying on an unlicensed person to communicate with the client, in breach of cl 1; 2.2 failing to obtain and carry out the client’s informed instructions, in breach of cl 2(e); and 2.3 facilitating the provision of immigration advi...

7. INZ (Greathead) v Ortiz [2019] NZIACDT 59 (29 August 2019) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...client asking him to write a letter stating he had worked at the salon voluntarily. He did not, so she kept ringing him and sending texts urging him to send the letter. The client told Immigration New Zealand’s investigator that Ms Ortiz was careful not to mention in any of her texts what the letter was in relation to. The client then stopped communicating with her. [24] On 27 November 2015, Ms Ortiz replied by email to Immigration New Zealand’s second letter advising that sh...

8. AQ v UD LCRO 188/2013 (10 August 2013) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...further action in relation to her complaint against Mr UD. Mr UD was counsel for Mrs AQ in a High Court appeal hearing. Background [2] Mrs AQ and Mr B are the parents of C. They were involved in Family Court proceedings in relation to C’s care. The pivotal issue was whether or not Mr B had sexually abused his daughter or whether for any other reason he was not a suitable person to have the unsupervised care of his daughter during weekends. The Family Court found that M...

9. LCRO 98/2019 EL v SV, DV & JV (31 March 2021) [pdf, 510 KB]

   ...million. [8] D, S and J V (the Vs) were amongst the residual beneficiaries of Mr OM’s will. D was Mr OM’s daughter, and S and J were two of his grandchildren. [9] Litigation over Mr OM’s estate ensued. This included claims under the Family Protection Act 1955 (FPA), and a claim by Mrs PE under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA). [10] As executor and trustee, Mr EL was the defendant in all of the proceedings. [11] Mr EL instructed counsel to act in the PRA proceedi...

10. BORA Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill [pdf, 410 KB]

    ...information about products to the public and prescribes the manner in which this should be done. We consider that the information that must be provided to the public does not appear to be sufficiently "expressive" in content to attract the protection of section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act (freedom of expression). 4. Clause 35 of the Bill empowers Waste Control Authorities to make announced and unannounced inspections of waste transported to, or inspected by, the operators of a...