Search Results

1. CE v DT LCRO 281 / 2011 (30 September 2013) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] The Standards Committee made a finding of unsatisfactory conduct against lawyer CE (the Practitioner) by reason of his failing to have provided his client, DT (the Respondent), with information in keeping with his obligations under Chapter 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules). This concerned his failure to have provided the Respondent with a Letter of Engagement....

2. Andrews v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2025] NZACC 45 (10 March 2025) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...[15] Meanwhile, Mr Andrews sought advice from Mr Boyle, Orthopaedic Surgeon. Mr Boyle filed an assessment report and treatment plan (ARTP) requesting surgery funding in January 2021. The ARTP referenced the March 2005 accident. [16] The surgery requested was considered by Dr Fong, Principal Clinical Advisor. On 4 February 2021, the Corporation approved surgery funding. At that stage, cover was updated to cover biceps tendinitis, a glenoid labrum tear, and a closed fracture of the...

3. DK & EK v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 359 (27 March 2024) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...claim that their contract did not include a term limiting the liability. 21. That is because the terms of a contract are set at the beginning of the contract and cannot be introduced part way through the transaction. In my view the contract was formed at the point S Ltd accepted DK and EK’s request to come and inspect the property. 22. Given DK and EK only received the term limiting liability after this (ie once they received the report) it did not form part of their contractual a...

4. LCRO 236/2017 HC and CI v PR (10 December 2019) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...High Court. [7] This decision necessarily proceeds on the basis of the materials that were before the Committee, and a determination of unsatisfactory conduct that cannot be overturned by this Office on review, whatever alternate view might be formed as to the propriety of the unsatisfactory conduct determination or the complainants’ veracity. [8] For an order to be made pursuant to s 156(1)(d) of the Act, there must be evidence that supports the complainants’ claim to compens...

5. BD v DS Ltd [2020] NZDT 1504 (14 October 2020) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...does not necessarily mean they had something to hide. There could be other reasons. Conclusion 25. For the reasons above, DS’s claim is dismissed. Referee: Ms G Jaduram Date: 14 October 2020 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a re...

6. CT & ID v S Ltd [2022] NZDT 7 (2 March 2022) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 7 APPLICANT CT APPLICANT ID RESPONDENT S Limited The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 11 March 2021 CT and ID (the applicants) engaged S Limited (SL) to perform a pre- purchase inspection report on [address] (the property). 2. Some months after purchasing the property, the applicants became aware of issues with the windows and water ingress. 3. The applicants are claiming $9,328.90, being...

7. EC v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 186 (13 June 2023) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...provide to their customers. They said however that every issue that EC encountered was dealt with and resolved by U Ltd, and that overall, even taken together, they considered that the service provided was reasonable. 13. I have taken all of the information provided by both parties into account and I am unable to make a finding that U Ltd’s service was not provided with reasonable care and skill in this case. 14. I can see that there were a number of issues that EC encountered in...

8. BE v ZI Ltd [2022] NZDT 265 (17 December 2022) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...the total amount of $18,400.00. Conclusion 19. For these reasons ZI Ltd is to pay BE the sum of $18,400.00 including GST by the date stated in the order. Referee: K Rendall Date: 17 December 2022 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a reh...

9. FQ v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 248 (24 November 2022) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...satisfied that loss was reasonably foreseeable. I find FQ is entitled to be paid by T Ltd $4,000.00 for this loss. Referee: B Curtis Date: 24 November 2022 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehe...

10. MW & NW v SL & TE [2023] NZDT 510 (20 September 2023) [pdf, 217 KB]

    ...a 15% discount is appropriate, or in other words MW and NW should be reimbursed for 85% of the expense. 15. SL and TE are to pay MW and NW $2,737.31. Referee: M Wilson Date: 20 September 2023 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a reh...