Search Results

1. Appellant v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 410) & Geoffrey Twigden [2017] NZREADT 79 [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...submissions [12] In part, [the appellant’s] submissions addressed the substantive decision, and were not relevant to [the appellant’s] appeal against the penalty decision. [The appellant’s] submissions also addressed the Committee’s processes in investigating and determining her complaint, and again were not relevant to her appeal against the penalty decision. With respect to the penalty decision, [the appellant] submitted that the Committee’s decision not to make penalt...

2. CAC 306 v White [2016] NZREADT 38 [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...November 1999. On 13 August 2013 the complainants, Ms Phillips and her partner Mr Wright, entered into an agreement to purchase the property. The purchase was settled on 10 October 2013. The sale of the property was undertaken by Ms White in her private capacity, not in her capacity as an estate agent. [4] The charge focuses on representations allegedly made by Ms White concerning the septic tank (“the tank”) by which the property’s sewerage system was managed. [5] In the c...

3. Complaints Assessment Committee 408 v Reed [2017] NZREADT 34 [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...offer to purchase the property himself, for $1.1 million. The offer was on an Agency sale agreement form. Mr Reed had drawn a line through the box at the bottom of the form which stated that the sale was made by the Agency, and had written “PRIVATE SALE” under the box. The Whittys signed the agreement and returned it to Mr Reed on 6 August. [8] The Whittys’ sale to Mr Reed was settled on 3 October 2014. They were not charged commission on the sale. The Tribunal’s fin...

4. CA v DX & OX [2023] NZDT 17 (21 February 2023) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Grounds for Appeal There are very limited grounds for appealing a decision of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the pro...

5. BI v OX [2021] NZDT 1543 (17 September 2021) [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...in the circumstances. [7] BI says OX’s response was simply an unqualified statement confirming that the car did not overheat. He could not see that it would be read any other way. [8] OX says that the context was important where it was a private sale and he was not a mechanic or a car salesman providing an expert opinion. He explained had only owned the car for a month. He also says his response should be understood more narrowly in the context as meaning “he had no experien...

6. BK & BH v FF [2023] NZDT 68 (31 March 2023) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Grounds for Appeal There are very limited grounds for appealing a decision of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the p...

7. OIA-124051.pdf [pdf, 849 KB]

   ...340.00 hrs Name suppression appeal 24.00 hrs Sentencing preparation 45.00 hrs Name suppression application 8.00 hrs Disbursements $ Dollars Social media analysis $9,953.75 Printing of disclosure $1,850.00 Hard drive $112.17 Printing $1,550.00 Private investigator $10,735.40 Forensic toxicologist $15,300.00 Report – Psychiatric/Psychiatrist $9,375.00 Travel personal car $88.00 Released under th e Offic ial In formation Act 1 982 *Hours are paid at lawyer’s applicable hour...

8. [2019] NZEnvC 019 Willowridge Developments Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 10 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA Court: IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2019] NZEnvC 19 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to section 120 of the Act WILLOWRIDGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (ENV-2017 -CHC-027) Appellant QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge J R Jackson Environment Commissioner D J Bunting Hearing : In Chambers at Christchurch Final submissions received 12 Janua

9. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v M [2013] NZLCDT 1 [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...Committee is in this professional disciplinary context. It is to enquire into a complaint, determine how the matter should be dealt with (including reference to the Tribunal), and, if referring the matter to the Tribunal after its preliminary investigation is complete, deciding the charge to be laid and laying those charges with supporting evidence. In due course it will then seek to prove the charge before the Tribunal. All of the

10. Deeming v Whangarei District Council (Discovery) [2015] NZHRRT 37 [pdf, 72 KB]

    ...which some of the councillors, staff of the WDC and third parties discussed the events in relation to which Mr Deeming lodged his complaint as well as the complaint itself. [4.2] Evidence of the “process” said to have been followed by the WDC in investigating a complaint by Mr Deeming under the WDC Code of Conduct. [5] The WDC in turn seeks: [5.1] All correspondence between Mr Deeming and the Northland Rugby Union about the incident; and [5.2] All correspondence between Mr Deemi...