Search Results

1. Email of Breaker Bay and Moa Point Progressive Association 3 March 2017 [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...powers of the Association (clause 4 of the Constitution) are: The preservation and development of Breaker Bay and Moa Point as a residential community. To see that this preservation and development is well planned and aesthetically pleasing. To protect the interests of those in the area especially with regard to the provision of public services, health, care, and recreation. To improve and protect the unique environment and natural resources of the area. To create and foster a healthy com...

2. Pokere v Bodger - Ōuri 1A3 (2022) 459 Aotea MB 210 (459 AOT 210) [pdf, 585 KB]

   ...responsibilities to protect that taonga. Should that taonga be well protected, the mana is enhanced, and at the same time, if that taonga is not well protected the associated mana becomes unstable and is diminished, or even taken away. The forms of protection given would affirm mana to be retained, to be bequeathed, to be carefully managed, to be cultivated; it would be developed, nourished, cared for 459 Aotea MB 219 ka pīkauria, ka tohea, ka pakangahia taua t...

3. LCRO 68/2017 GM v BN (6 July 2017) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...11 Email BN to GM (13 December 2016). 12 Email GM to BN (6 January 2016). 8 (d) On 27 January Mr BN requested confirmation from Mr GM that agreement had been reached between the parties concerning fire protection and maximum occupancy of the premises. If so, he also asked for confirmation that a new lease had been agreed between ABC Limited and the landlord. (e) Mr GM and Mr BN exchanged communications on 30 January in relation to the fire

4. LCRO 359/2013 SW v LM [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...361, [2016] NZAR 475 at [2]. 6 coming to his or her own view of the fairness of the substance and process of a Committee’s determination. Discussion Rule 13.8 [19] Before commencing a review of the material provided, it is necessary to carefully examine r 13.8 and 13.8.1, which Mr SW submits have been breached: 1. There must be an “attack on a person’s reputation”. 2. The “attack” must be made “without good cause”. 3. The attack must be made either:...

5. [2022] NZIACDT 1 - ZI v Wan (19 January 2022) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...on 27 June. [18] On 23 September 2019, Immigration NZ declined the residence application. It was not satisfied that the investment funds had been legally earned. The letter advised the complainant that she could appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) within 42 days of certain days. [19] Mr Wan then filed a guardian visitor visa application on behalf of the complainant on 28 January 2020. [20] Immigration NZ wrote to Mr Wan on 17 March 2020 raising certain issues...

6. SG v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 557 (5 July 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...plans were incorrect. SG alleges [the Architect] and S Ltd are liable for the encroachment. This claim is against S Ltd only and SG claims $30,000.00. 2. The issues I must decide are: a. Was S Ltd’s work completed with reasonable skill and care? b. If not, did S Ltd refuse, neglect or fail to remediate any failures? c. If not, was the failure of a substantial character? d. Is the amount claimed reasonable, taking into account SG’s obligation to mitigate his loss?...

7. LCRO 170/2020 KLM Limited v ND (30 March 2021) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...ND’s 11 May 2017 letter “contain[ed] a threat or threats”, that was “not the intention”. He explained if a person, such as Mr OE, “purport[ed] to act as an expert” beyond the person’s areas of expertise, then without the statutory protection of an arbitrator, that person may be liable for doing so. [103] Mr ND says in the end the parties agreed to refer the disputes to arbitration which is “a consensual process” and was not “forced” on [KLM] as it claims. Con...

8. Khan v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 6 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...interest against Ms Khetarpal’s interests (A v Professional Conduct Committee at [82]). [45] When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty that, short of exclusion from a profession, a person will not reoffend. This Tribunal must carefully weigh the circumstances. It is appropriate to place an element of considered trust in a practitioner who has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [46] Dishonesty points to the need to remove a practitioner from a pr...

9. J v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 7 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...interest against Ms Khetarpal’s interests (A v Professional Conduct Committee at [82]). [45] When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty that, short of exclusion from a profession, a person will not reoffend. This Tribunal must carefully weigh the circumstances. It is appropriate to place an element of considered trust in a practitioner who has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [46] Dishonesty points to the need to remove a practitioner from a pr...

10. AN v DH LCRO 119/2015 (23 December 2015) [pdf, 97 KB]

    ...decision, the Family Court’s comments that Ms AN’s “behaviour was out of character” and that the Court viewed “Ms AN’s withdrawal from the lawyer for Child panel as an unfortunate outcome”. [43] The Committee then focused on the consumer protection purposes of the Act saying: 8. Consumers of legal services need to be protected from behaviour which does not meet a lawyer’s professional obligations. Given there is an overriding professional duty to the court, the fact s...