Search Results

1. Thomas v CAC304 & Anor [2016] NZREADT 17 [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...[18] Mr Lang and his solicitors were adamant that he had been. We cannot test this conclusion but it supports our view that there was a risk of confusion. The purpose of the Rules and the Real Estate Agents Act is to ensure that consumers are protected 5 from being taken by surprise. Agents are obliged to use their best endeavours not to confuse purchasers or to deceive them and are obliged to draw to purchasers’ attention matters which in fairness they ought to be aware...

2. ED v VV LCRO 229 / 2010 (15 June 2011) - Costs Decision [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...against a lay person, it must be remembered that the scheme of the complaints procedure, is to enhance the rights of consumers to complain about the conduct of lawyers. The inclusion of the concept of unsatisfactory conduct has introduced a consumer protection element into the disciplinary process that did not previously exist. [15] Those rights are extended to the right to seek a review of decisions by the Standards Committees. In this regard, it is important to recognise that thi...

3. Tapiki and Eru v New Zealand Parole Board (Strike-Out Application) [2017] NZHRRT 41 [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...(other than the offender). [11] It is the position of Ms Tapiki and Ms Eru, that in terms of s 50(2), they are person(s) other than the offender and the disclosure of their address unduly interfered with their privacy. The Parole Board could have protected their privacy and withheld their address pursuant to s 50(2) but did not. [12] In reply, the Parole Board reiterated that s 50 required the release of Mr Dolman’s release conditions (including his address) and reiterated that th...

4. Edwards v Capital and Coast DHB (Application for Non-Publication Orders) [2016] NZHRRT 19 [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...expression. Whenever the court is asked to make an order of that kind, therefore, it is necessary to consider carefully whether a derogation of any kind is strictly necessary, and if so what is the minimum required for that purpose. [10.3] The need to protect the particular interests of children can be an exceptional circumstance in civil proceedings. Generally, persons under the age of 18 years can expect non-publication orders. See for example ss 11B to 11D of the Family Courts A...

5. Nisha v Devi [2011] NZIACDT 26 (5 September 2011) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...return. A courier acknowledgement or receipt from a person uplifting reflects standard practice for the return of important documents. The Adviser has not provided an adequate explanation. I am satisfied the explanation is negligent laxness and want of care in document management in the Adviser’s office, and she is responsible for that. [33] In all the circumstances, I am satisfied compensation of $2,100 (NZ$) is appropriate to recognise the significant inconvenience and trouble to wh...

6. KJ v WN LCRO 46 / 2011 (13 April 2012) [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...refusal to meet her invoices; the Practitioner had not upheld her right to be treated according to the LSA policy. [20] The essence of this complaint appears to be based on the Applicant’s perception that the Practitioner had an obligation to protect her against any potential breaches by the LSA of its own policies. This cannot be right. It is the responsibility of the LSA to act in accordance with its policies. I can see no basis for holding the Practitioner responsible for...

7. BORA Limitation Bill [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...commented (at [51]): “It is noteworthy that limitation periods in personal injury cases are a common feature of the domestic legal systems of the Contracting States. They serve several important purposes, namely to ensure legal certainty and finality, protect potential defendants from stale claims which might be difficult to counter and prevent the injustice which might arise if courts were required to decide upon events which took place in the distant past on the basis of evidence...

8. BORA Public Transport Management Bill [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...standard of the balance of probabilities would be convicted. We consider, therefore, that where the defendant is required to prove something in order to escape liability, the use of strict liability offences is contrary to the presumption of innocence protection contained by section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act. Strict Liability Offences in the Bill 8 The Bill contains the following strict liability offences: • Clause 46 (operating an unregistered commercial public transport se...

9. Michael Moore – Rebuttal (dated 12 June 2017) [pdf, 6.4 MB]

   ...Point project was an assessment of the effects of subdivision including provision for three houses on a coastal headland feature. I considered the site had high landscape value and sensitivity and that the development proposed did not appropriately protect the natural character and landscape values. In my opinion this site is considerably more sensitive than Porteous Hill because I assess it as being a landscape feature within the coastal environment and because its scale is much...

10. Anonymised [2017] NZREADT 38 [pdf, 139 KB]

    ...U Realty [21] Mr Grove submits that the fine of 50% ($10,000) of the total available fine is excessive. He provided the Tribunal with a number of cases where the party concerned received a lesser fine. The Tribunal have considered these cases carefully. The Tribunal conclude that there is no basis on which to overturn the level of fine. There is no error of law, wrong weighting of evidence nor is it plainly wrong. The fact that the Tribunal may have imposed a slightly lower fine do...