Search Results

1. LCRO 161/2020 SE v GR (31 March 2021) [pdf, 305 KB]

   ...was not the registered owner of the property as “misleading and deceptive conduct” by the vendor at the time the sale agreement was negotiated. She alleges Mr GR, and the firm failed to protect her interests by not “carry[ing] out whatever investigations” were considered necessary to “establish [that] fraud” thereby enabling her to “walk away” from the sale agreement “without penalty”. (3) Complaints process [36] Ms SE says between 18 August 2018, when she fir...

2. CAC 10063 v Raj [2012] NZREADT 37 [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...(charge 1) [20] Mr Raj met Leemo Saolotoga and her husband in late 2010. Mr Raj had been recommended to Mrs Saolotoga by a BNZ loan officer named Vinod Rathore. It is noted Mr Rathore has since been suspended by BNZ and the bank is conducting an investigation into his conduct. [21] In October 2010, Helene Crompton met Mr Raj. Ms Crompton and her husband were selling their property at 13 Piper Place, Goodwood Heights, privately. Mr Raj approached Ms Crompton and asked whether he cou...

3. [2023] NZREADT 2 - Wilson and Wilson v Registrar of the REAA (26 January 2023) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...the challenges raised to the Registrar’s decision are sustainable. In any event, even if the Registrar erred, the ultimate decision is unassailable: the applicants’ complaint is inconsequential and does not raise anything justifying further investigation. [51] The Registrar made the decision under s 74(3)(a) of the Act. The meaning of “inconsequential” is normally “not important or significant”. It is an objective standard. Complaints will always be subjectively im...

4. [2010] NZEmpC 4 Lewis v Howick College Board of Trustees [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...refused to return his property to him and photocopied his notes. It also included a reference to his personal grievance in 2004 in respect of Mrs Reyneke’s conduct towards him. Further, his response noted that the Ministry of Education’s investigators’ report into what he described as his ’whistle blowing’ allegations was due on 11 April. Mr Lewis referred to his complaints about seven other staff members and attached these to his e-mail. He asked that his seven compla...

5. Bristol v Ngāti Rangi Trust - Rangiwaea-Tāpiri [2017] Chief Judge's MB 269 (2017 CJ 269) [pdf, 435 KB]

   2017 Chief Judge’s MB 269 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20070002188 CJ 2007/007 UNDER Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF RANGIWAEA-TĀPIRI (Formerly known as RANGIPŌ NORTH 8) – Application to Chief Judge BETWEEN RANGI BRISTOL, AIDEN GILBERT & MATIU HAITANA Applicants AND NGĀTI RANGI TRUST Respondent Hearings: 302 Aotea MB 51-64, dated 29 April 2013 326 Aotea MB 165-238, dated 25 August

6. Guo v PwC (Discovery and Search Order) [2021] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...PwC’s intentional breaches of the Act in order to frustrate the inquiry by the Privacy Commissioner. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1908/0089/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM1818991#DLM1818991 8 [25.5] PwC did not allow the Commissioner’s investigating officer to enter PwC and to inspect its system. [26] Only allegations 1, 2 and 3 are relevant to the alleged breach of IPP 6 and of s 40(1). The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine allegation 4 which is in any ev...

7. [2016] NZEnvC 248 Northcote Point Heritage Preservation Society Incorporated v Auckland Council [pdf, 5.9 MB]

   ...Point. [10] Evidence for the Applicant identified that the Auckland Harbour Bridge was originally intended to have provision for pedestrians and cyclists, but that had been excluded throughout the life of the bridge; hence the current public private partnership (PPP) approach to the proposal now. [11] No parking is intended to be provided at the Northern Landing as part of the present proposal. That understanding however did not placate the Appellant in relation to its concerns....

8. [2022] NZEnvC 161 Hutt City Council [pdf, 2.6 MB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KOTI T AIAO O AOTEAROA Kl TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA IN THE MATTER BY Decision No [2022] NZEnvC 161 ENV-2021-WLG-000039 of the direct referral of applications for resource consents and Notices of Requirement under Sections 87G and 198E of the Resource Management Act 1991 for the Riverlink Project NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY WELLINGTON REGIONAL COUNCIL HUTT CITY COUNCIL KIWIRAIL HOLDINGS LIMITED Applicants Court: Alternate Env

9. [2022] NZEnvC 056 New Zealand Cherry Corp (Leyser) LP v Central Otago District Council [pdf, 4.3 MB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI OTAUTAHI IN THE MA TIER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2022] NZEnvC 56 of the Resource Management Act 1991 an appeal under Clause 29, Schedule 1 of the Act NEW ZEALAND CHERRY CORP (LEYSER) LP (ENV-2021-CHC-73) Appellant CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge PA Steven - sitting alone under s279 of the Act In Chambers at Christchurch Date of Consent Order: 8 April 2022

10. [2011] NZEmpC 36 Zhou v CE of DOL [pdf, 232 KB]

    PHILIP ZHOU V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR NZEmpC AK [2011] NZEmpC 36 [15 April 2011] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2011] NZEmpC 36 ARC 115/10 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF interlocutory applications BETWEEN PHILIP ZHOU Plaintiff AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR Defendant Hearing: 14 March 2011 (in Chambers) (Heard at Auckland