Search Results

1. Retto v Standing [2012] NZIACDT 47 (30 August 2012) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...did not provide. [59] This aspect of the complaint must be upheld. Mr Standing’s behaviour was both misleading and dishonest, and accordingly grounds for complaint under section 44(2)(d) of the Act. It was also in breach of the Code of Conduct (clauses 1 and 5), which is also grounds for complaint pursuant to section 44(2)(e) of the Act. Demanding and retaining excess fees [60] I am satisfied Mr Standing did not provide professional services that reflected the fees he demanded and...

2. LCRO 246/2013 YM v RD (7 January 2019) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...conditions, namely that Mr YM: 2 (a) be satisfied with a building inspection report by 27 September 2012 (the builder’s report condition); and (b) sell his home by 17 October 2012 (the sale condition). [4] The agreement also contained a cash-out clause for the vendor. [5] Having signed the agreement, Mr YM instructed Mr RD to act on the purchase. [6] Mr YM was to arrange for a builder to provide a report. [7] On 25 September 2012, the day before the builder’s report condit...

3. Song v CAC 20008 & Clement [2014] NZREADT 54 [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...issues regarding the title. 4.3 Similarly, under the ‘further terms of sale’ in the contract there is also a specific term relating to the Earthquake Commission claim of the vendor being transferred to the new owner on settlement, and that this clause is for the sole benefit of the purchaser. This term has also been initialled by the Complainant. Based on this term of the contract we accept the Licensee’s explanation that she raised this point with the Complainant for insurance...

4. Brighton v Standing [2012] NZIACDT 43 (24 August 2012) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...Tribunal. [25] The Minute made it clear to the parties they could provide further information, and that would be considered by the Tribunal. [26] The Minute also requested further information from Mr Standing. [27] The Minute noted: [27.1] The Code (clause 3) requires Mr Standing to maintain complete client records for seven years, and confirm in writing the details of material discussions with clients. Accordingly, he should be in a position to present a fully documented record of...

5. BORA Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) [pdf, 385 KB]

   ...enquiry is essentially twofold: • does the provision serves an important and significant objective; and • is there a rational and proportionate connection between the provision and that objective. Strict Liability Offences in the Bill 7. Clause 84 of the Bill repeals the existing mens rea offence in section 312 of the Act and replaces it with a strict liability offence. Once the prosecution has proved that the accused allowed a person subject to an exclusion order to enter the ga...

6. [2024] NZREADT 09 – WQ v REAA & NN (2 April 2024) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...dismissed by the Committee, which decided to take no further action. [4] The purchaser appeals to the Tribunal, arguing that the presence of monolithic cladding and its effect on financing the purchase should have been expressly added as a special clause in the sale and purchase agreement (the purchase agreement). BACKGROUND [5] The property is in Auckland. It has monolithic cladding, but there is no evidence it has weathertightness issues. It was listed with CU (the agency) on 22...

7. BORA Harmful Digital Communications Bill [pdf, 303 KB]

   ...reason of race, religion or other personal characteristics. 5. The Bill then proposes a range of direct and indirect remedies for digital communication that is in breach of these principles and that causes harm. Public complaints procedure 6. Clauses 7-8 of the Bill provide for a public complaints procedure, which is to be administered by a designated “Approved Agency”. The agency is to receive, assess, investigate complaints of harmful electronic communications and seek to r...

8. [2009] NZEmpC AC 25A/09 Kereopa v Go Bus Transport Ltd [pdf, 45 KB]

   KEREOPA V GO BUS TRANSPORT LTD AK AC 25A/09 18 September 2009 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 25A/09 ARC 48/08 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN REWA PATRICIA KEREOPA Plaintiff AND GO BUS TRANSPORT LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 1 and 2 July 2009 (Heard at Hamilton) Appearances: James Parlane, Counsel for Plaintiff Simon Menzies, Counsel for Defendant Judgment: 18 September 2009 J

9. BORA Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...establishes the Tūpuna Maunga o Tāmaki Makaurau Authority (or Maunga Authority) and sets out matters relating to its membership, functions and powers, administration, and procedures. 10. Part 4 of the Bill provides for commercial redress. Subpart 1 (clauses 120 to 152) provides the Whenua Haumi Roroa o Tāmaki Makaurau Limited Partnership (the Limited Partnership) and the rōpū entities with a right of first refusal in relation to RFR land. The owner of RFR land must not dispose of...

10. NI v LNE Ltd [2020] NZDT 1316 (23 November 2020) [pdf, 117 KB]

    ...SECOND RESPONDENT WXT Pty Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed Reasons 1. NI is claiming the Infrastructure Growth Charge (IGC) from LNE Ltd (LNE) for $13,823.00 which was charged by WXT Pty Ltd (WXT). She refers to clause 19 of the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) with LNE dated 22 April 2018 which says the “Vendor is responsible to the installation of the water meter.” 2. The issue to be determined is whether clause 19 of the SPA includes the IG...