Search Results

1. Wolverhampton v Shaftesbury LCRO 145 / 2009 (23 June 2010) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...been posted nor had it been placed in an envelope. The Standards Committee informed the Practitioner accordingly. [4] The Practitioner wrote again to the Standards Committee on 15 June 2009 challenging the truthfulness of the Applicant‟s claim that she did not know how the document came to be in her letter box. He contended that she had found the document among her papers and had herself placed it there. He reiterated his earlier stance that the Applicant had the document a...

2. [2018] NZEmpC 88 Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd [pdf, 321 KB]

   ...the other. [13] On 14 April 2009, an IEA was signed between Perry’s and Mr Lorigan, backdated so as to be effective from 24 March 2009. As will be discussed later, Mr Lorigan pleaded that this document was signed under duress, and he now informs the Court that he considers it to be void. [14] On 31 May 2009, Perry’s amalgamated under Part 13 of the Companies Act 1993 (the CA) with two other companies in the Sime Darby Group. The evidence is that as a consequence of the am...

3. Bridge v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 409) and Edwards [2018] NZREADT 61 [pdf, 312 KB]

   ...vendors on 6 May 2016. She referred to the hole in the chip heater flue, the lack of hot water in the laundry, and the garage spouting (describing it as “buggered”). She did not refer to the fence. [7] On 9 May, Mr Bridge’s solicitors requested a price reduction of $7,500 from the vendors’ solicitors: … Our client put in an offer on a “sight unseen” basis, relying upon representations by the agent. A building report has identified that the property is not concr...

4. 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....

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. 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...