[2011] NZLCDT 9 Canterbury Standards Committee v X [pdf, 197 KB]
...could use the transfer. If he was dead we couldn’t use the transfer”. [38] That indicates X would have stayed in close touch with Mr S to monitor the situation he described. Mr S died on 5 December 2003 and the property transaction went through in January 2004. It is most unlikely that in those circumstances X did not know Mr S had died. [39] X has been equivocal about his state of knowledge regarding Mr S’s death, certainly at the outset of the investigation by the L...