Search Results

1. [2021] - NZREADT 09 - Complaints Assessment Committee 1905 v Papuni (24 February 2021) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...misconduct under s 73(a) (disgraceful conduct) of the Act. We are not required to consider the alternative charge under s 73(b). Penalty Principles as to penalty [21] The principal purpose of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 is to “promote and protect the interests of consumers in respect of transactions that relate to real estate and to promote public confidence in the performance of real estate agency work.4 The Act achieves these purposes by regulating agents, branch manage...

2. [2020] NZREADT 24 - Schroder (16 June 2020) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...significantly reduced. Recently, his income has been affected by the Covid- 19 pandemic. 2 Pursuant to s 126 of the Act. Penalty principles [29] The principal purpose of the Act is to “promote and protect the interests of consumers in respect of transactions that relate to real estate and to promote public confidence in the performance of real estate agency work.3 The Act achieves these purposes by regulating agents, bran...

3. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hooker [2018] NZLCDT 15 [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...that negligence under s 241 had not been made out for the reason that the failure was not such as to reflect on the respondent’s fitness to practise or as to bring the profession into disrepute. It was not conduct that was below the standard of care required of the ordinary solicitor. [23] Mr Billington acknowledged that it was hard to resist the proposition that the respondent’s failure qualified as unsatisfactory conduct under s 12. [24] Mr McCoubrey, for the applicant, did n...

4. [2020] NZIACDT 18 - UO v Nukulasi [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...party has requested an oral hearing. ASSESSMENT [36] The Registrar relies on the following provisions of the Code: General 1. A licensed immigration adviser must be honest, professional, diligent and respectful and conduct themselves with due care and in a timely manner. Futile immigration matters 9. If a proposed application, appeal, request or claim is futile, grossly unfounded, or has little or no hope of success, a licensed immigration adviser must: a. advise the client in...

5. [2022] NZEnvC 226 Wellington City Council v Liffey Street Limited [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...risk now posed to the neighbouring properties from the potential for subsidence. 43 I do not have any confidence that Mr Vasist will comply with any abatement notice the Council serves. The strong impression we have is that Mr Vasist does not care about taking the precautions required to ensure the effects of his development are contained to the construction site. Reluctantly, my manager and I have concluded that we need the Court to make an interim enforcement order and hope that...

6. [2022] NZEnvC 175 Greensmith v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...A11th01i!J v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd [2021] NZHC 2577. 18 Foodst11ffs (Otago S 011thla11d) Prope,ties Limited v D11nedin City CoH11cil (1996) 2 ELRNZ 138. 19 DFC NZ Ltd v Bielf?J [1991] 1 NZLR 587. 10 [18) The High Court in Environmental Protection Authotiry v B W Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd signalled a potential departure from the Biellry factors in favour of the High Court costs principles.20 However, this Court has identified concerns with the approach in BW Offshore and h...

7. Twigley v New Zealand Law Society [2023] NZLCDT 28 (18 July 2023) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...fresh start, he has adopted a community-minded and unselfish approach to helping others in need. 15 See above n 8. 7 [19] For obvious reasons, we cannot place weight on the positive references from his family members. In fact, in a protective jurisdiction such as this, personal references can rarely be accorded much weight unless they specifically address, for example, the work a practitioner has put into addressing underlying causes of the misconduct. That sort of en...

8. Kennedy v Scanner Investments Ltd [pdf, 169 KB]

   CLAIM NO: 02832 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN DONALD WILLIAM KENNEDY and CATHERINE ANN KENNEDY Claimants AND SCANNER INVESTMENTS LTD First Respondent AND WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent AND CALLY CONSTRUCTION LTD Third Respondent AND CLIVE LEWIS trading as Clive Lewis Draughting Service Fourth Respondent DETERMINATION OF ADJUDICATOR (Dated 24 Janua

9. LP v MT LCRO 74/2013 (22 October 2014) [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...different proposition from that which formed the basis of Ms LP’s first offer. [43] Ms LP’s first offer was for $175,000 and that was the price accepted by the mortgagee in the Agreement which was finally signed. However, the benefits and protections of the first offer were not included in the offer as accepted and consequently the value to Ms LP was substantially reduced. [44] If, as suggested by Ms NQ in her email to Ms LP dated 29 November, it was possible for the mortgag...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 024 Environmental Defence Society Inc v Minister for Environment [pdf, 373 KB]

    ...instance (that their counsel is aware of) in which a challenge to the lawfulness of an RMA national direction has been brought. That involved High Court judicial review proceedings. [28] While s310(a) confers a potentially broad power, it has been carefully and narrowly applied.19 Section 310 contains a closed list of matters. Moreover, the Environment Court does not possess inherent jurisdiction. [29] Section 310 does not list, as a matter for declaration, whether an instrument...