Search Results

1. NG & OG v JS [2024] NZDT 33 (18 January 2024) [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...means that, during contractual negotiations, a seller is generally under no obligation to ensure that the other party is fully informed about the transaction, and the seller need not disclose all material facts/defects about the goods. Further, the protections given by the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and the Fair Trading Act 1986 to purchasers who purchase from suppliers in trade are not available to a private purchaser. However, the law of misrepresentation set out in s35(1)(a) of the Co...

2. CS & KS v H Ltd [2023] NZDT 605 (13 November 2023) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...rooms requires good guttering. Their concern about the gutters is that in future events with heavier rainfall the gutters may overflow 13. HG points out that the inverter is weatherproof to the IP 65 standard. “IP” refers to “International Protection”, and is a standardised code established by the EU as code EN 60529. To meet this standard an appliance must be able demonstrate complete resistance to dust for up to 8 hours (level 6, the first number), and resistance to water...

3. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v Beacham [2012] NZLCDT 29 [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...interest (which include “protection of the public”), to maintain professional standards, to impose sanctions on a practitioner for breach of his/her duties, and to provide scope for rehabilitation in appropriate cases. Tribunals are required to carefully consider alternatives to striking off a practitioner. If the purposes of imposing disciplinary sanctions can be achieved short of striking off then it is the lesser alternative that should be adopted as the proportionate response....

4. Canterbury Standards Committee v A Practitioner [2015] NZLCDT 44 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...context he submitted that ‘fraudulent’ had a wider meaning than fraud in a criminal sense. He queried why otherwise would the word ‘criminal’ be used in the rule. He argued that narrowing the interpretation of the word would reduce the protection of the public and would undermine the purpose of the legislation as provided for in ss 3 and 4 of the Act for the maintenance of public confidence. 7 [27] The Tribunal has determined that it is not necessary to resolve the ar...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Yoo [2016] NZLCDT 35 [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...responsibility, has led to him setting matters in order and we will refer more specifically to that under the discussion of “mitigation”. [5] We record, as has been said many times, that the purposes of penalty in the disciplinary jurisdiction is to protect the public, to maintain the standards of the legal profession, to maintain the reputation of the profession and the public’s confidence in it as a result. [6] The starting point for assessing proper penalty is to consid...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 5 VMR v Civil Aviation Authority [pdf, 519 KB]

   VMR v CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY [2022] NZEmpC 5 [24 January 2022] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2022] NZEmpC 5 EMPC 386/2021 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN VMR First Plaintiff AND KRR Second Plaintiff AND WEN Third Plaintiff AND XDD Fourth Plaintiff AND CIVIL AVIATION AU

7. Professor Simon Francis Thrush - Evidence in Chief [pdf, 2.7 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Auckland Registry ENV 2015 AKL 0000134 IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal under Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act TRUSTEES OF MOTITI ROHE MOANATRUST Appellant BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF PROFESSOR SIMON FRANCIS THRUSH ON BEHALF OF MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST 25th October 2017 Counsel Acting RB Enright Barrister Level 1, Stanbeth House 28 C

8. Slinger v Zhou [2015] NZIACDT 38 (15 April 2015) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...before commencing work that incurred costs (clause 8(b)). [8.2] That Ms Zhou breached clauses 1.1(a) and (b) of the 2010 Code; those provisions required Ms Zhou to perform her services and carryout the lawful informed instructions of clients with due care, diligence, respect and professionalism. The particulars of the alleged breaches of those obligations were: [8.2.1] In July 2011, the applicants engaged Ms Zhou to submit an expression of interest and an application for a residence vi...

9. LCRO 190/2020 JG v VK (23 March 2021) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...conduct. [134] I am satisfied that Ms JG’s predicament was, to a significant degree, occasioned by the unhappy outcome of a convergence of circumstances which had regrettably impeded the process of registering a border alert which would have protected Ms JG from what she correctly perceived to be, imminent threat of her husband removing the child. [135] Whilst I consider, with the benefit of the minute scrutiny that frequently accompanies the luxury of hindsight analysis, that t...

10. LCRO 112/2024 BA obo DO and YW v NC (30 May 2025) [pdf, 266 KB]

    ...disclosing his relationship with Mr LM. Application for review [17] Mr BA on behalf of Mr DO and Mr YW, filed an application for review on 5 September 2024.3 [18] He submits that: 2 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (Conduct and Client Care Rules). 3 Mr BA filed the review application in his name. The application is advanced on behalf of his clients. 6 (a) had the Committee brought a more objective analysis to an examination of the...