Search Results

1. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v M [2013] NZLCDT 1 [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...and Mr Foote. These were all matters relevant to Ms H’s transaction the Standards Committee said, and should have been disclosed to her. [16] In his response of 17 October 2011 to the charge, Mr M denied the charge, stating that he had carefully discussed the matter with Ms H in obtaining her informed consent, and that he did not withhold any relevant information from Ms H in that process. [17] Mr M also denied that he had a relevant solicitor and client relationship with...

2. George Lancaster v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 491), John Lantz & Stephanie Kelland [2017] NZREADT 77 [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...the allegations in the proper form, hold an agent to account, compensate the injured party, and act as a deterrent and educational for other agents, and to ultimately give the public the confidence that [their] rights as a paying consumer are protected. [52] Where a submission is made, or indicated, in the course of an appeal against a decision of a Complaints Assessment Committee, that the Committee should have laid a charge against a licensee, the Tribunal should not be put in th...

3. [2017] EmpC 158 Car Haulaways Ltd v First Union Inc [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...The Court of Appeal reviewed issues of compliance in respect of notices relating to essential services in New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Assoc IUOW Inc v Air Nelson Ltd.4 As was made clear in that case, the purpose of the notice requirement is to protect the public interest in respect of essential services as far as is reasonably possible. If need be, contingency or emergency planning could be undertaken. The Court of Appeal approved an earlier statement from the leading authority o...

4. AQ v KX & Anor LCRO 274/2013 (17 May 2016) [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...because [Law Firm X] has knowingly facilitated the loss of Ms AQ’s and other FRR holder’s funds. (g) [Law Firm X] should have some responsibility for [Company V]’s actions and representations to the effect that the FRR payments would be protected, and for allowing its trust account to be used as a vehicle to collect funds on behalf of [Company V] and the payment out of those funds which has caused loss to Ms AQ and other FRR holders. [26] [Law Firm X] and Mr KX were invited...

5. BZ v FI LCRO 245/2013 (5 April 2016) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...correspondence to their real estate agent of 29 May 2013. [11] In its decision delivered on 28 June 2013, the Committee determined to take no further action on the complaint. The Committee considered that Mr FI’s correspondence had been carefully drafted and written in such a way as to ensure that it was readily apparent that he was presenting his clients’ view of the situation. Application for Review [12] Mr and Mrs BZ filed an application to review the Standards Committ...

6. Waitangi Tribunal - Kaupapa Inquiry Programme Direction [pdf, 476 KB]

   ...Constitutional law, sovereignty; provision for the exercise of government and Maori self-government; electoral regime, political electoral system representation in national, local and specialised bodies 3 Health services and Hospitals, primary healthcare, rong08, provision for the outcomes disabled, rehabilitation, elder care and rest homes, mental health, smoking, HIV/AIDS, public health, health promotion, occupational health, poor health status and outcomes 4 Mana wahine and Discrim...

7. Macey v Whitehead - Hauiti Marae (2008) 180 Gisborne MB 31 (180 GIS 31) [pdf, 3.1 MB]

   ...Maniapoto Appellate MB 360 where it was held that the meeting of beneficiaries simply decides what evidence to place before the Couti . . The hui does not decide who is to be appointed a trustee. That remains the preserve of the Comi, which will carefully consider several factors in deciding whom to appoint, including the wishes of the beneficiaries and the experience of the proposed trustees. [31] In conclusion, I consider that the only practical outcome is for the all the current...

8. Tuwhangai v Boon – Kawhia U 2B Block - (2018) 160 Waikato Maniapoto MB 113 (160 WMN 113) [pdf, 303 KB]

   ...that remains the case, I do not consider that an order under s 18(1)(a) declaring any equitable interest that the successors of Mrs Ormsby might have in the joint tenancy, would offend the provisions of s 77 of the Act. The Court must of course be careful that any such determination does not seek to annul, quash, declare or hold that the 1992 order is invalid. Decision [31] The Court does have jurisdiction in accordance with s 18(1)(a) to hear and determine the equitable claim ma...

9. [2017] NZEmpC 149 P v A [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...conflicted with earlier and subsequent minutes issued by me. This apparent conflict does not indicate any error in the judgment, but nevertheless the point should be clarified. In an earlier minute dated 19 July 2017, I had indicated that in order to protect the then current position there would be an order extending the interim non-publication order made by the Authority until such time as P’s interlocutory application could be heard and a judgment on the application issued by...

10. [2017] EmpC 154 Sawyer v Victoria University [pdf, 330 KB]

    ...did not waive privilege and would not normally do so.16 [27] Mrs Shannon’s lawyer had also filed an affidavit, but it contained information breaching her privilege. In a cautionary observation the Court said that Ms Shannon would have to be careful not to rely on her lawyer’s affidavit because, if she did, privilege would be waived. [28] Both Ophthalmological Society and Shannon predated the Evidence Act 2006. [29] Section 65 of the Evidence Act reads: