Search Results

1. [2023] NZREADT 34 - IX v REAA (CAC2102) (8 December 2023) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...12 Moseley v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 1907) [2021] NZREADT 19 at [59]. 13 Mr O (also known as X) v Complaints Assessment Committee 10028 [2011] NZREADT 2 at [32]–[33]. 6 dishonesty. It could not be said that the public need protecting from the licensee to the extent that her wellbeing would likely be seriously jeopardised. [24] On the basis of the new evidence, which was not presented to the Committee, we find the Committee’s order to publish its decisions sta...

2. MAG-Final-report-on-workstream-1.pdf [pdf, 622 KB]

   ...guards is a constant theme in the submissions, and likely offers quick wins because it will improve the certainty of consequences for criminals. Legal liability, whether from Health & Safety legislation or from criminals detained, needs careful consideration. Protecting workers as well as management & owners from malicious legal action from criminals needs legislating against. Health & Safety legislation also needs consideration. These are a barrier to use of enhance...

3. SD v AE & BE LCRO 229/2013 (21 August 2014) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...promoting of Mrs SD’s cause to engage in personal denigration or advancement of aggressive submission to the Court. (iii) Mrs SD was given frequent opportunity to discuss the settlement with him. (iv) The consequences of the settlement were carefully explained to Mrs SD. (v) The solicitor for the estate considered that Mrs SD should accept the settlement. (vi) All estate assets were taken into account when agreeing the terms for final division. (vii) Whilst Mrs SD conveyed t...

4. Complaints Assessment Committee 412 v Grewal, Preet & Co Real Estate Limited, Voordouw and Mason [2018] NZREADT 70 [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...six weeks Ms Wallbutton took immediate action to remove the other licensee from their position, interviewed staff, and contacted her accountant, auditor, franchisor, banker, and solicitor. The Complaints Assessment Committee said that she had “carefully and tirelessly ensured that all the client funds held by her business were recouped and correct”. [42] However, Ms Wallbutton did not report the matter to the Authority. The Committee considered that it was “understandable an...

5. Morpeth v Ramsey LCRO 110 / 2009 (12 November 2009) [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...Discipline). One of the purposes outlined in s 120(2)(b) is that complaints ―may be processed and resolved expeditiously…‖. The Act in s 4 also affirms the fundamental obligation of a lawyer to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed to clients. It is therefore appropriate to interpret the respective provisions in a way which is consistent with the protection of consumers of legal services, and the provision of a responsive and expeditious complaints...

6. BORA Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill [pdf, 347 KB]

   ...advertising is permissible from nine and a half hours down to just two hours (new section 184C(1)). 13. Currently, Principle 4 of the Code requires liquor advertisements not to be shown between 6:00am and 8:30 pm. It also requires broadcasters to take care to avoid the impression that liquor promotion is dominating the viewing or listening period when broadcasting liquor advertisements. The associated guideline 9 states that television liquor advertising shall not exceed six minutes per...

7. PG Ltd v KH Ltd & JC Ltd [2014] NZDT 1346 (31 October 2014) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...claims that sum from JC. 7. KH says the first claim was paid in error. It seeks recovery from PG of the $9,477.29 paid. 8. The issues to decide are: a. Is KH required to pay PG because it paid on a previous claim? b. Did JC take reasonable care and skill to effect/renew PG’s insurance and let PG know if it couldn’t? c. If not, would cover have been available? Would it have responded? Did PG suffer $11,114.81 of loss? d. Is KH’s estopped from ‘clawing back’ the $9,4...

8. QC v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 782 (24 September 2024) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...2. QC claims $6000.00 from N Ltd comprising $1500.00 for paint defects and $4,500.00 for an absent fibre conduit. 3. The issues to be determined are: a. Was N Ltd the builder of the property? b. Did N Ltd fail to exercise reasonable care and skill and/or fail to produce an outcome that was reasonably fit for purpose in relation to the paint work? c. If so what is the remedy? d. Did N Ltd fail to exercise reasonable care and skill and/or fail to produce an outcome that wa...

9. SP v GC Ltd [2024] NZDT 500 (17 June 2024) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...by a defect in the roofing at the property and seeks an order that GC Ltd is liable to pay him $3,029.00. 2. Attendance, 3. The issues to be resolved are: a. Is the claim within the limitation period? b. Was the roof laid with reasonable care and skill? c. If not, what remedy is appropriate? Is the claim within the limitation period? 4. SP bought his house in June 2016 brand new from GC Ltd, who had built the house. In February 2024 SP found a leak in a bedroom in the ho...

10. Grants-Handbook-v5.pdf [pdf, 1.8 MB]

    ...Criminal, including Court of Appeal and Supreme Court cases • Criminal Cases Review Commission • Family, including Court of Appeal and Supreme Court cases • ACC • Children worker’s exemption appeals • Employment • Public Protection Orders • Victims’ Orders against Violent Offenders • Civil (General), including Court of Appeal and Supreme Court cases • Auckland - Auckland Central, Manukau, North Shore, Papakura, Pukekohe, Waitakere • North...