Search Results

1. [2024] NZREADT 28 – CT v CAC 2106 & Ors (27 August 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...ensure the Offer Presentation (containing the acknowledgement of receipt of the approved guide) was signed prior to or at the same time as the agreement for sale and purchase, in breach of s 133 of the Act and r 5.1. 5. CT and BT were each responsible for the conduct of the other. [44] The Tribunal will consider each challenged finding in turn. 1. CT and BT failed to inform ML and/or HL of the visits by [building inspector 1] and [building inspector 2], in breach of r 9.3...

2. Puohotaua v Paranihi - Rakato and Part Rakato B Maori Reservation (2024) 487 Aotea MB 53 [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...positive picture of the work that the current trustees have done since taking office in 2020, yet do not shy away from the reality that post-2020, things with the Reservation Trust required considerable improvement. [12] I address relevant specific responses when analysing the grounds for removal. Ngā Ture The law [13] The starting point is a reminder that removing a trustee for cause is a serious step and is not to be taken lightly.10 [14] In more specific terms, I may only...

3. AG v ZQ LCRO 204/2011 (14 February 2014) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...borrowing had to be from the solicitors nominee company. The alternative loan is understood to refer to a loan offer allegedly made by Prudential, but did not in the event proceed. It was understood that the Complainant held the Practitioner responsible for losing this refinancing opportunity. [21] I have considered this specific matter in relation to the same complaint from the investor-complainant who sought a review by this office of a Standards Committee decision that did n...

4. [2020] NZREADT 41 - Bellis v Real Estate Agents Authority (9 September 2020) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...normal for all improvements to be included under this heading, and this would include the trees. Can you comment on this. … [8] Mr Davison referred Mr Bellis’s questions to the vendors, who responded to Mr Davison the same day. Their response included the following: Thanks for passing on the questions from Bruce Bellis. In addition to the clarifications we discussed with you, here are some notes from us: • There is no “asking price”. We have provided some indicativ...

5. LCRO 17/2021 NV v WQ (30 June 2021) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...March 2019 advising that he would initiate the valuation required; and (c) advised that he had written to Mr PY on 11 April 2019 making request as to whether the valuation had been ordered or received; and (d) confirmed that he had received no response from Mr PY; and (e) noted that the order disposing of proceedings dated [Date] 2009, sealed on [Date] 2009, placed obligations on [Law Firm A], not Mr PY personally to take steps to organise the valuation; and (f) complained that...

6. 2023-09-26-SOE_Logan-Brown_Water-Quality-and-Aquatic-Ecology.pdf [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...proposed wording of the condition does not reflect the agreement in the Freshwater Ecology JWS that the information collected under the NES-F should then be compared to the basis on which the culverts was designed and built. I do not consider it the responsibility of the Regional Councils to undertake that assessment. Schedule 7: Freshwater Ecology Management Plan (EMP) [60] At (g) in the EMP, there is a specific reference to monitoring of the streams that feed into Lake Waitawa a...

7. Newbury v Windsor LCRO 58 / 2009 (20 July 2009) [pdf, 28 KB]

   ...was then referred to Mr Windsor’s father who assists in his practice as an accounts manager. [8] It appears that some communication then occurred. A meeting was scheduled for 9 September however Mr Newbury did not attend that meeting. In response Mr Windsor Snr emailed Mr Newbury seeking payment of the invoices. A further meeting was arranged for the next week. Mr Windsor states that immediately prior to the meeting Mr Newbury agreed with Mr Windsor Snr that that the W account...

8. Wooten v Dorr [2012] NZWHT Auckland 46 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...that he built and project managed the construction of the Wootens’ home and therefore owes the claimants a duty of care. I have found that the established defects with this home are essentially workmanship issues that would generally be the responsibility of the builder. [21] It is arguable that Mr Dorr may not be responsible for the liquid applied membrane installation, but it was clearly applied on the ill prepared deck substrate, which was the responsibility of Mr Dorr....

9. SI v MO LCRO 241 / 2011 (7 November 2012) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...funds. Although not mandatory, the Trust Account Guidelines (“the TA Guidelines”), published by the Law Society, are designed to assist lawyers to comply with the requirements of the LCA and the TA Regs. Discussion Essence of the complaint and response [50] The essence of [SI and SJ’s] complaint is that contrary to their instructions to [MO] as to the approximate amount of money they expected to have to repay to [SK] to obtain a withdrawal of [SK’s] caveat for settlement, [...

10. [2017] NZSAAA 06 (20 October 2017) [pdf, 227 KB]

    ...benefit calculation. Undoubtedly her mother is in a better financial position as a result of the contribution and her efforts to help out are admirable but this does not somehow invert the previously held roles and [make] the applicant … financially responsible for her mother. The applicant submits that as her mother would not be able to meet the costs of living in their current home without her contribution that this reliance amounts to dependence. Further that the absence of any...