Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v Holdaway [2023] NZLCDT 8 (6 April 2023) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...client’s file, she ignored the authority and instruction to send it. In another example, where her client instructed her to deposit money into an investment account, she did not do so for about three months. She treated the Standards Committee’s requests for information as unnecessary, and ignored them. [7] When called to account for her conduct, she recited a number of medical issues and other problems. She seemed unable to acknowledge that her practice was not providing s...

2. [2025] NZREADT 05 - CAC 2204 v Cooper & Cooper Co Real Estate Ltd (17 February 2025) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...Government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Auckland moved to alert level 4 and on 22 September 2021 restrictions were relaxed slightly to alert level 3. [7] On 21 September 2021, after first telephoning Mr Cooper, Mr Callahan sent him an email requesting certain information by the end of the week. The email to Mr Cooper recorded his agreement to assist Mr Callahan with the enquiry into the complaint. Mr Callahan received no response from Mr Cooper or Cooper and Co. [8] Mr...

3. LCRO 132/2016 FA v GD (20 December 2018) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...the Disputes Tribunal settlement. [17] In simple terms, Ms FA’s complaint, as addressed by the Committee, is that the deposit was refunded without consent (but see [34]–[40] below). The Standards Committee determination [18] The Committee requested and received the firm’s file relating to the sale. The Committee recorded the issue to be considered in the following terms:6 3 The staff member is Ms NT, referred to in the Committe...

4. Rogers v Hauraki – Te Aute A1B (2015) 117 Taitokerau MB 87 (117 TTK 87) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...dismantling the structures intended for the vehicular bridge). [7] Before going further I note that by the time the application was filed, Te Kotuhi was in fact no longer an owner in the land. On 30 March 2009 the Court transferred (at her request) all of her interests in Te Aute A1B to her nephew, Whatarangi Rogers. 5 Mr Coutts did not take issue with Te Kotuhi’s standing to bring the application. I therefore proceed on the basis that Te Kotuhi has express or implied author...

5. Nelson Standards Committee v Webb [2011] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...proposition, and while not strictly accurate, use of that phrase in the course of indicating the availability of house-sitters does not amount to misconduct. [53] As a result, we find that none of the conduct itemised in the Email Charge, and forming the basis of the charge, constitutes misconduct. It may represent carelessness, perhaps even to the extent that would support a finding of unsatisfactory conduct, but that was not the charge Mr Webb faced. As there is nothing proven in...

6. Complaints Assessment Committee 414 v Deepak Goyal [2017] NZREADT 58 [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...transaction; and [iii] Mr Grewal/HP & MP would complete the purchase in the event that VAD defaulted. [n] VAD settled the purchase of Number 11 on 27 March 2015. VAD settled the purchase of Number 13 on 25 June 2015. [o] Mr Goyal did not inform either of his vendor clients that his company, VAD, had become the nominated purchaser. Neither vendor was provided with an independent valuation, or signed a consent form for Mr Goyal to buy their property. No commission was rep...

7. Robinson v ACC [2012] NZACA 12 [pdf, 637 KB]

   ...Corporation also left the question of compensation open, so that if further information was located, the excluded periods could be revisited. [14] The periods for which compensation was paid were calculated by reference to the WINZ reimbursement requests. The periods for which WINZ paid a benefit were accepted as confirming that the appellant had no earnings for those periods, but the periods where no benefit was paid were excluded. Some periods were ultimately paid, leaving the three p...

8. SW v Standards Committee LCRO 371/2013 (14 September 2015) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...information to form a view on that matter. That aspect of the Committee’s decision is not challenged by Mr SW on review. [42] Argument that Mr SW was unaware of the nature of the advance, and took deliberate steps to ensure that he remained uninformed, must be directly addressed. [43] If Mr SW’s argument is accepted that at the time the funds were advanced he deliberately avoided any discussions with the parties which would have drawn to his attention the basis on which Mr TX...

9. Tatana - Estate of Ratahi Tatana (2017) 157 Taitokerau MB 132 (157 TTK 132) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...the day to day farming operations were meant to be authorised by Owen. 157 Taitokerau MB 134 4.3 Ratahi Murray had been permitted to run beehives on the farm for approximately five years prior to Diane’s death. In return he was to perform some farm labour and pay rates. Ratahi failed to pay the rates and they fell into arrears. This was raised at the whānau hui following Diane’s death but he still failed to pay rates despite continuing to run bees on the farm. 4.4 O...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 148 Marlborough District Council v Gifford [pdf, 352 KB]

    ...any actual or likely adverse environmental effects that have been caused by that person. That is what the order here does, by requiring engagement of a suitably qualified approved person to investigate a likely potential contamination effect to inform the position on remediation. The cases cited by Mr Gifford did not involve an investigation that was necessary for the remedy. The cases cited by Ms Besier show that if an investigation is a logical step in remedying the breach, by ident...