Search Results

1. Fielding v REAA & McIntyre [2012] NZREADT 10 [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...matters, even if it was a conclusion on which minds might reasonably differ. In such circumstances it is an error for the High Court to defer to the lower Court’s assessment of the acceptability and weight to be accorded to the evidence, rather than forming its own opinion”. [7] In Kacem v Bashir [2010] NZSC 112 the Supreme Court has clarified that the principles in Austin, Nichols apply to Courts exercising jurisdiction over general appeals from lower Courts, not appeals from dec...

2. Auckland Standards Committee v Eichelbaum [2014] NZLCDT 23 [pdf, 33 KB]

   ...end in this case. 9 Above, n 1. 10 Section 240(1). 11 B v The Queen [2011] NZCA 331. 6 “incalculable hurt to individual family members and the extended family as a group” was clear and formed a solid basis to justify suppression. [20] We consider that, on balance, similar considerations apply to this practitioner’s family and that for this reason, in the absence in countervailing public interest reasons which might tip th...

3. DOP v Nelson (Application for In-Court Media Coverage) [2013] NZHRRT 13 [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...the Director of Proceedings and Ms Nelson were asked to advise whether the application was opposed and if so, the reasons for the opposition. The Chairperson would then decide whether to grant or decline the application on the papers or convene a formal hearing or telephone conference. 2 [3] The responses filed by the parties have provided no grounds for the convening of a formal hearing or of a telephone conference. The application is therefore to be dealt with on the papers.

4. ABC v XYZ (Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 27 [pdf, 47 KB]

   ...for consideration an affidavit by the plaintiff (to which we turn shortly). He advised that she was a person of very limited means but she nevertheless acknowledged that she would have to make a financial contribution to the defendant’s costs. A request was made that any award of costs be one which was realistically possible for her to pay. [4] In an affidavit affirmed on 31 July 2013 the plaintiff deposed (inter alia) that: [4.1] She realised that the bringing of her claim before t...

5. Auckland Standards Committee v Macdonald [2012] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...consented to by the practitioner. The charges are so serious that indeed no other consequence would have properly reflected the seriousness of this charge and its background. [7] The final matter to be considered is the Standards Committee’s request for a reimbursement to them of the mandatory section 257 in respect of the Tribunal’s own costs which are in the order of $3,000-$4,000 and will be the subject of a second minute specifying the costs to be paid by the Standards...

6. Auckland Standards Committee v Morahan [2015] NZLCDT 35 [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...deplore the respondent’s attacks of which those mentioned are but a few. Mr Morris took time to rebut the criticisms. We have accepted his rebuttal. [18] We have concluded that there is no evident remorse on the part of the respondent. His request at the penalty hearing that we should revisit his state of mind demonstrated a lack of insight into his conduct and a lack of understanding of his wrong-doing. His emotional expression at this hearing was more obviously based on the...

7. [2015] NZSSAA 60 (26 August 2015) [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...valuation of the assets and provide accounts for the year ending 31 March 2014. [16] The appellant has now provided accounts for the year ending 31 March 2014, although these accounts lack a balance sheet. He has also provided an email detailing information he has been given by a Mr XXXX from XXXX Autoparts. The information available seems to suggest that Mr XXXX would pay a total of approximately $1,600 for twelve vehicles apparently owned by the company. Alternatively the appell...

8. Yuan v REAA CAC 20002 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 44 [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...that this was not brought to his attention when he signed the tenancy management agreement and it should have been. The property was sold to a tenant and no commission was paid despite the clause in the Residential Management 4 Authority form which entitled Summit Real Estate to charge 3% of the purchase price plus GST. [20] The licensee was fined following the CAC’s decision to find him guilty of unsatisfactory conduct. [21] The Tribunal does not consider that this...

9. AE v ZV [2014] NZDT 559 (9 June 2014) [pdf, 32 KB]

   ...absences overseas, and she represented him in the hearing. [2] ZV was planning a major extension to his house. In August 2013, he approached AA to seek a waiver of AE's right to object to a proposed height-to-boundary infringement. He also informed her that survey plans showed the boundary fence was not on the correct boundary line. The fence encroached on AE's land by up to 50cm at the widest point, although there was some more minor encroachment on ZV's land at th...

10. Samisoni v Tangilanu [2015] NZIACDT 60 (19 May 2015) [pdf, 169 KB]

    ...Tangilanu’s delivery of the services she agreed to provide lacked both due care, and diligence; accordingly she breached clause 1.1(a) of the 2010 Code for those reasons. [3.2] Ms Tangilanu failed to report that Immigration New Zealand rejected the request, and did not report why it was rejected. She had a duty to do so, and accordingly breached clause 3(a) of the 2010 Code. [4] The full circumstances are set out in the substantive decision. The Parties’ Positions on Sanctions [...