Search Results

1. Sisley & Anor v CAC 301 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 89 [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...has been proven.” The Committee’s Penalty Decision [7] Subsequent to its 13 May 2014 decision finding unsatisfactory conduct as covered above, in the usual way the Committee dealt with penalty by a separate decision on 15 August 2014. Having carefully covered appropriate facts and principles, the Committee fined each licensee $1,000 and ordered they each be censured. The Committee also noted they had each offered to provide a written apology to the complainant and requested that...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 59 Bracewell v Richmond Services Limited [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...release this 2 Richmond Services Ltd v Bracewell [2013] NZERA Auckland 481. 3 Bracewell v Richmond Services Ltd [2014] NZCA 629. information, it would do so since it was necessary to protect Client A from further abuse of her privacy. This step would be taken pursuant to r 11(2)(h)(i) of the Health Information Privacy Code 1994. As a result, I directed the Bay of Plenty DHB to file an affidavit from a person who had kno...

3. [2021] NZREADT 46 - Tapu (23 August 2021) [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...transparent, and effective.11 [10] In order to meet the purposes of the Act, penalties for misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct are determined bearing in mind the need to maintain a high standard of conduct in the industry, the need for consumer protection, the maintenance of confidence in the industry, and the need for deterrence. [11] A penalty should be appropriate for the particular nature of the misbehaviour, and the Tribunal should endeavour to maintain consistency in penalti...

4. BORA Parliament Bill [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. Parliament is a unique environment in which long-standing democratic principles have been, and must continue to be, upheld. This includes enabling public access and participation, and ensuring that constitutional protections are maintained (e.g., Parliamentary Privilege). 9. This context must be taken into account when considering whether this legislation is consistent with the Bill of Rights Act. Section 14 – Freedom of expression 10. Secti...

5. Singh v Golian [2017] NZIACDT 14 (12 September 2017) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...considerable amount in doing so. Because the complaint and the appeal to the IPT were both entirely without foundation, the potential for serious harm to the complainant and his wife was significant. For that reason, the adviser had a duty to very carefully weigh the circumstances before pursuing the appeal and the complaint. The risks of the strategy were 13 far greater than simply not being successful with the complaint and the appeal. [56] I have already expresse...

6. LCRO 18/2020 MP v LT (31 August 2020) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...basis of all information available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [30] The parties have agreed to the review being dealt with on the papers. 6 [31] 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 necess...

7. [2018] NZEnvC 205 Cossens v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 14 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 205 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act JOHN COSSENS (ENV-2017 -CHC-079) Appellant QUEENSTOWN-LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J R Jackson Environment Commissioner J T Baines Hearing: at Queenstown on 1 and 2 August 2018 Final submissions received 12 September 2018 Appearance

8. Herman, Wang, Howatt, Li, Thornhill, Gilchrist, Barnao, Watson v CAC10100 & Jackman [2012] NZREADT 60 [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...lustre and, therefore, market value to the property in order to enrich the agent and the vendor at the expense of the buyer. It is put that such advertisement is a breach of Rule 6.4 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2009 which prohibits licensees from misleading customers or clients, or providing false information, or withholding information which should by law or fairness be provided to a customer or client. [14] Mr Barnao accepts that Pate...

9. [2007] NZEmpC AC 15/07 Gates v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 35 KB]

   ...The Court of Appeal, in the case referred to by Mr Thompson, A S McLauchlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd (2002) 16 PRNZ 747, stated that the discretion is not to be fettered by constructing “principles” from previously decide cases. The Court must carefully assess the circumstances of a particular case, noting that where a plaintiff is unable to meet an adverse order for substantial security this may in effect prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. The Court of Appeal stated:...

10. Mason v REAA Registrar [2013] NZREADT 35 [pdf, 31 KB]

    ...if there had been no offending. Certainly, that is how we have treated that situation. He said that if a real estate salesperson’s licence could be granted to him he would be willing to be closely supervised for six months or so. [24] We have carefully reconsidered the views we set out in our said decision of 23 January 2013 together with the further information and advantage of viva voce evidence on 26 March 2013. 5 [25] We accept that the applicant has many talents, pe...