Search Results

1. National Standards Committee 1 v Deliu [2016] NZLCDT 27 [pdf, 480 KB]

   ...We deal with the first two together as they are closely related. 1.01 [The practitioner] incompetently argued for the parents to represent their children, when the parents had previously been found by the Family Court to be unfit to have the care of their children. 1.02 Without having reasonable grounds to do so, [the practitioner] made an application for the removal of … the litigation guardian, during the course of a telephone conference held on 13 February 2008 before...

2. Tweeddale v Pearson [pdf, 405 KB]

   ...situation, the council says it owes no duty of care. [63] In Sunset Terraces and Byron Ave the Court focused on the intended residential end use of the building in question. In Sunset Terraces, where the Council was found liable, Heath J was careful to limit his finding of the existence of a duty of care to owners of properties intended to be used for residential properties. At para [220], Heath J. said: [220] In my judgment, a territorial authority owes a duty of care to...

3. LCRO 54/2018 KJ v VW (6 July 2018) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...which allows a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) to conduct the review on the basis of all information available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [19] 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 neces...

4. Director of Proceedings v Xu [2023] NZHRRT 30 [pdf, 554 KB]

   ...1. The plaintiff is the Director of Proceedings exercising statutory functions under sections 15 and 49 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 (“the Act”). 2. At all material times the aggrieved person was a consumer of health care services. 3. At all material times the defendant, Mr Shengming (Steven) Xu (“Mr Xu”), a massage therapist, was a health care provider within the meaning of s 3 of the Act, and was providing health care services to the aggrieved p...

5. Ngati Pahauwera Affidavit on behalf of Trustees [pdf, 3.1 MB]

   ...this in 2012. 3. This application is made by the Trustees for recognition of Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 (“the Takutai Moana Act”). We also seek wahi tapu protection as provided for in the Takutai Moana Act. NEW EVIDENCE 4. In 2013 the Trustees engaged a project manager, Bonny Hatami, to collect new affidavit and statement evidence from members of Ngati Pahauwera in support of this application....

6. Tuumotooa v Tangilanu [2014] NZIACDT 101 (01 October 2014) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...them) the Tribunal has prevented Ms Tangilanu from reapplying for a licence for two years. Those decisions explain why I do not consider rehabilitation is realistic. Those sanctions relating to Ms Tangilanu’s ability to hold a licence address the protection of the public and the desirability of rehabilitation. In relation to the other sanctions imposed, the orders excluding Ms Tangilanu from practising are taken into account as part of the matrix of penalties. 4 [14] Each...

7. Taueki v McMillan - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Māori Reservation (2004) 148 Aotea MB 27 (148 AOT 27) [pdf, 642 KB]

   ...generations, according to their information. They also take umbrage Minute Book:148 AOT 29 at the suggestion that they have in some way failed in their duties both to the Beneficiaries and to the Court. On the contrary, in their view they have taken the care and protection of the Reservation to new heights with both local and national recognition for their efforts. They also consider the Applicant a self appointed kaitiaki with no mandate from either the Beneficiaries or the iwi. A nu...

8. [2019] NZEnvC 134 Strategic Property Advocacy Network v Auckland Council [pdf, 328 KB]

   ...156(1) of the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 201 O STRATEGIC PROPERTY ADVOCACY NETWORK Appellant (ENV-2017-AKL-000167) AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENCE SOCIETY INCORPORATED WAITAKERE RANGES PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED GM and J M YOUNG Section 27 4 parties Principal Environment Judge L J Newhook, sitting alone under s 279 of the Act In Chambers at Auckland Submissions: John Newick on behalf of the Strategic Property Advoca...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...These were summarised in the decision of Daniels1 as follows: (a) The primary purpose is not punishment, although orders inevitably will have some such effect; (b) The predominant purpose is to protect the public interest, which includes the protection of the public; (c) To maintain professional standards; (d) To impose sanctions on a practitioner for breach of his/her standards; (e) To provide scope for rehabilitation in appropriate cases; (f) To carefully consider alternativ...

10. Kopa v Kopa – Kotuku B1 (1983) 62 Whangārei MB 182 (62 WH 182) [pdf, 1 MB]

    ...c011fir■at1oa: -J2fj lotab 11 C•f& ... 1'- • ,_rt IU Salw llr r P lrect, for llodl aU.wr/aliaee. - - - ----- ------ htMI' _. - tawwttOB. I lulft ,.noully perllUaded alleor to nta.111 • Uf• illter~.J u • ..-.ur• of protection f- coaUaned fOOd taniliij.- -- . . . /2 182 - -·-- ----~--- --·- . . - •·· - · . . . . ·····--···· ·· - . - --- ----- Court: ConfirMd order Sec 34(10) for 1-diate relea•• to Aaat. eo.. S/Duti•• at Whan...