Search Results

1. ET v F Ltd & EN [2024] NZDT 562 (9 August 2024) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...party I need to consider and evaluate the evidence presented to the Tribunal by the parties. Did EN drive negligently and cause the collision while driving F Ltd’s van? 10. A person may not drive a vehicle, or cause a vehicle to be driven, carelessly or without reasonable consideration for other persons: s8 Land Transport Act 1998. A driver also owes a common law duty of care to other drivers to take reasonable care in operating their vehicle and will be responsible for any re...

2. [2022] NZIACDT 3 - IL v Khetarpal (10 February 2022) [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...failing to advise the complainant that her salary did not meet the threshold in immigration instructions required to support a dependent student visa and failing to file an application in the correct visa category for the son, thereby lacking due care, in breach of cl 1; (2) failing to inform the complainant about the District Court order regarding her licence status, in breach of cl 3(a); (3) failing to inform the complainant and obtain her instructions concerning Immigration NZ�...

3. Schiller-Cooper v Lozano [2013] NZIACDT 17 (21 March 2013) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...appropriate standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned. [17] The statutory purpose is achieved by considering at least four factors which materially bear upon maintaining appropriate standards of conduct: 5 [17.1] Protecting the public: section 3 of the Act states “The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice ...” [17.2] Demanding minimum standards of conduct: Dentice v Valuers Registratio...

4. Geldenhuys v C Yap [2013] NZIACDT 42 (15 July 2013) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...required to weigh the public interest against Ms Yap’s interests. 6 [44] 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. [45] A significant factor in this case is that it involves dishonesty....

5. [2020] NZEnvC 212 Dunedin City Council v Ross [pdf, 15 MB]

   ...expressions of opinion unreliable in view of the concession Ms Dempster was forced to make and the comparative experience of Mr Ross operating such machinery in such terrain . (42] While the Rule endeavours to offer a fair balance between vegetation protection and property rights, it is unfortunately unworkable in circumstances such as these as illustrated by the lengths Ms Dempster went to, to endeavour to prove a breach . [43] I find that Ms Dempster was on somewhat safer ground r...

6. LCRO 156/2023 PF v NY, WJ and MQ (11 October 2024) [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...the respondents owed duties to the Trustees collectively, referred to as “us”, and stating that “…the corporate veil Matrix swerving around any and every duty to the individual Trustees is simply absurd” (sic). [51] I record that having carefully read the complaint, the response to the complaint, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the application for review, there are no additional issues or questions in my mind that necessit...

7. 16-May-2020-Regional-Plan-Waste-for-Otago-with-PC1-proposed-amendments.pdf [pdf, 2.5 MB]

   ...This Plan provides an integrated approach to these waste issues, the aim of which is to reduce the adverse effects associated with Otago’s waste stream. This integrated approach encompasses the elements of reduce, reuse and recycle with careful consideration of the appropriate management and disposal of the waste that is generated. Every product needs to be considered in a life-cycle manner with respect to waste. This issue of waste is a crucial one for all of us in Otago. I...

8. Malik v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 7 [pdf, 313 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000004 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 7 BETWEEN AMIT MALIK AND MELISSA MARGARET DAWN MALIK Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND EVERBRIGHT HOMES LIMITED (struck off Companies Register) (Removed) Second Respondent AND PUTZ TECHNIK PRODUCTS LIMITED (struck off Companies Register) (Removed) Third Respondent AND HITCHINS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (Removed) Fourth Respondent AND ABLE WATERPROOFING LIMITE

9. R. Singh v Kumar [2016] NZIACDT 14 (23 March 2016) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...of his professional offending. [30] Mr Moses correctly submitted that the Tribunal must not speculate and go beyond the evidence before it. The parties may be aware of matters they do not, and should not, disclose to the Tribunal. The Registrar protects the public interest in that regard. [31] Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts Mr Kumar’s evidence that in the circumstances in which he provided his professional services he did so with care, diligence and professionalism, except for a l...

10. CAC10017 v Xu [2013] NZREADT 16 [pdf, 46 KB]

    ...(ii) On 24 August 2007 the complainant entered into an agency listing agreement with the defendant to sell the property; 2 (iii) On 24 August 2007 the defendant had received interest in the property from potential purchasers Tauroa Age Care Limited (Tauroa) and York Yu; (iv) On 24 August 2007 the defendant presented the complainant with an offer from Tauroa to purchase the property for $650,000; (v) On 24 August 2007 the complainant entered into a conditional agreement wit...