Search Results

1. X Ltd v II [2021] NZDT 1539 (14 May 2021) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...resulting in the amount claimed becoming $16,924.15. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 8 [5] I have to decide: (a) if the provisions of section 31 of the Consumer Guarantees Act apply; (b) whether the works were carried out with reasonable care and skill and were fit for purpose; (c) if goods supplied were of an acceptable quality; (d) if XL was provided with an opportunity to remedy any failure and, if so, whether the failure was remedied; (e) if any of the works included i...

2. [2014] NZEmpc 85 McCartney v Atlas Concrete Ltd and First Union [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...shall be final. [11] Mr Cranney points next to what he says is a further protection for members in Mr McCartney’s situation, being an appeal to the next regional biennial conference of the Union under rr 38 and 39. Mr Cranney categorises these protections available to a dissatisfied member in Mr McCartney’s circumstances as “very strong”. Counsel submits that the rules expressly contemplate that the appropriate union official may decide that the Union will not act as reque...

3. Nairn v Peebles LCRO 109 / 2010 (14 December 2010) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...letter to the 7 Applicant for response, obtained requested information from the Applicant which he then passed on to the purchaser‟s solicitors. There is no mention about information about the acquisition of the title. [24] I have carefully considered all of the above information. It seems to me that since the Applicant asserts that the 23 June letter “highlighted the issue” of the defective title – a matter that he (but not the Practitioner) had actual knowle...

4. Larkins v Kaitaia - Waihou Hutoia D2A Block [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 159 (2013 APPEAL 159) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...he considers that he can utilise and manage the interests more effectively than the current trustees. Finally, Mr Kahukiwa emphasised that there was no reasonable disadvantage to the affected parties should termination be granted. [30] Having carefully considered the submissions and the evidence on the Court file, our conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence to make the order sought. This means that there must be a rehearing of the application. The Māori Land Court is ac...

5. BORA Maritime Security Bill [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...contain a reverse onus whereby the accused must prove something in order to escape liability (clauses 66 and 67). We are of the opinion that these provisions constitute "justified limitations" on the right to be presumed innocent that is protected by section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act. In reaching this view, we have taken into consideration the fact that the offences in question may be described as public welfare regulatory in nature and the importance of ensuring that the...

6. BORA Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill [pdf, 332 KB]

   ...in section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights could apply. We note, however, that this issue has yet to be determined in New Zealand and it is unclear whether the courts would agree that individuals facing sanctions under a civil penalty regime have the protections provided for in section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act. 31. Irrespective of the debate as to whether section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act applies to civil penalty regimes, we consider that these offences would amount to a reasona...

7. Toiloloi v Letalu [2014] NZIACDT 93 (18 September 2014) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned.” [13] When imposing sanctions those statutory purposes require consideration of at least four factors which may materially bear upon maintaining appropriate standards of conduct: [13.1] 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 ...” [13.2] Demanding minimum standards of conduct: Dentice v Valuers Regist...

8. Justice Matters - issue 06 - March 2017 [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...Warren. Family Focus Rotorua and Barnardos have been contracted to deliver the service in Rotorua and Whanganui, respectively, until the end of February 2018. It is a free service that is initially available in cases where the Family Court has imposed protective conditions on a Parenting Order under section 51 or section 48 of the Care of Children Act 2004. The parties may be referred to the service at the discretion of the court. The pilot is part of the Ministerial Work Programme on...

9. [2021] NZEmpC 6 Bowen v Bank of New Zealand [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...2020 in support of her application for removal. BNZ asserts that the conversation was intended to be confidential and was conducted for the purpose of BNZ obtaining legal advice from its lawyer. As a result, BNZ claims that the conversation is protected by legal privilege and that it has not taken any steps to waive this privilege. Is the issue now moot? [11] Ms Bowen’s primary response to the claim of privilege is that, because the references to the alleged privileged communi...

10. National Standards Committee 1 v Reed [2021] NZLCDT 31 (2 December 2021) [pdf, 122 KB]

    ...been established, may demonstrate insight by the practitioner into the causes and effects of the wrongdoing. This, coupled with acceptance of responsibility for the misconduct, may indicate that a lesser penalty than striking off is sufficient to protect the public in the future. [188] For the same reason, the practitioner’s previous disciplinary history may also assume considerable importance. In some cases, the fact that a practitioner has not been guilty of wrongdoings in the pas...