Search Results

1. Dixon v CAC 20004 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 98 [pdf, 42 KB]

   ...she told them at open homes. However R 6.4 requires Ms Baker to make sure that defects are discussed. [23] We accept Ms Dixon’s evidence that she did not know that there was a problem with the piles. We consider that this is borne out by the request that she made to Mr Richardson to inspect the property. Evidence has shown that she was very keen to unboard the fireplace in the house and this was of concern to her. She asked Mr Richardson to look at this. Given her careful and c...

2. CAC20003 v Santipongchai [2015] NZREADT 11 [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...NZREADT11 READT 065/14 IN THE MATTER OF penalty under s.110 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (per CAC 20003) Prosecutor AND CHAIRAT (HENRY) SANTIPONGCHAI of East Tamaki, Auckland, former real estate agent Defendant MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Judge P F Barber - Chairperson Mr J Gaukrodger - Member Mr G Denley - Member BY CONSENT HEARD ON THE PAPERS DATE OF THIS DECISION 28 January 2015 REPRESENTATION M...

3. Penalty REAA CAC 20004 v Lindsay [2014] NZREADT 35 [pdf, 39 KB]

   ...May 2012. [14] Mr Napier noted that Mrs Lindsay was also clear in her evidence that: [a] Based on the complainant’s conduct, she honestly believed that the complainant was not interested in submitting a tender for the property; [b] She herself formed no intention to submit a tender until the morning of the tender deadline; and [c] She never had any intention to cause disadvantage to the complainant and did her best at the time to act appropriately. [15] He submitted that Mrs Lind...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 65 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...unreasonable and oppressive to require such documents going back six years before the matters at issue in the case;  that even if such documents contain relevant elements, they will also contain irrelevant ones as well; and  that such a request for disclosure is in the realm of a fishing expedition or audit of the plaintiff’s history. [4] In more detail, the plaintiff makes the following points. The plaintiff identifies what she says are errors in the defendant...

5. GN v TS LCRO 71 / 2011 (24 November 2011) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...2007. [5] The Applicant held a long-standing personal grievance against one of ACQ‟s employees, M, who she considered was materially responsible for ACQ having declined her insurance claim in the first instance. It is clear from all of the information on the file that the Applicant wanted M to personally answer for her conduct, but in the event, M was not required to give evidence in that proceeding. Nor, it appears, were professional conduct issues pleaded as part of that procee...

6. GH v UF LCRO 22 / 2011 (9 November 2011) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...no duty to a third party who is not his client. [33] It may well be the case that the Practitioner took no steps, or no adequate steps, to seek payment from his clients to reimburse the Applicant. However, when the O family did not respond to requests for payment of their share, or at some stage refuted the existence of a contact, the Applicant had (and has) remedies that he could have pursued to address these matters. The Practitioner had no obligation in this regard, and certain...

7. Kettering v Biggleswade LCRO 212 / 2009 (19 March 2010) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...obtained as a lawyer for D, adding that the lawyer had potentially jeopardised the position of D in the proceedings that were to follow involving D. [5] The Applicant had asked to be personally heard by the Committee in relation to the complaint, a request that the Committee had declined on the basis that it found no compelling reason why it should depart from its usual procedure of a hearing on the papers. The Applicant considered that this comprised his opportunity to have provide...

8. Portsoy v Riding LCRO 55 / 2010 (4 August 2010) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...consultancy fees. Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the Agreement provided that payments “shall only be used to pay contractors and/or materials in relation to the repairs”. The Agreement anticipated that the law firm would provide an undertaking in a form attached to 3 the agreement, and that undertaking was in fact provided by the Practitioner. The Committee accepted that payments made by the Practitioner had been authorised by H Ltd on invoices rendered. The Committee noted tha...

9. GB v PW LCRO 140/2012 (13 August 2014) [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...arose in May 2011, and she laid her complaint in the following August. The Committee records granting Ms GB a number of extensions to enable her to respond to the Committee’s various attempts to contact her, culminating in the Committee’s request for a copy of Ms GB’s file to which she did not respond. [16] The Committee concluded that Ms GB’s failure to progress Ms PW’s matter in a timely fashion, and not filing her protection order application in good time, constitute...

10. BO v DE LCRO 297 / 2012 (13 September 2013) [pdf, 92 KB]

    ...Practitioner asked her client for an alternative address, and he provided the Applicant’s work email address. [3] This letter, as regards to both content and the manner of its delivery to the Applicant’s work email, eventually became the subject of a formal complaint against the 1 Also described in correspondence as a “Contracting Out Agreement”. 2 Practitioner. Standards Committee decision [4] The Standards Committee c...