Search Results

1. [2022] NZEnvC 077 Durham Property Investments Ltd v Napier City Council [pdf, 898 KB]

   ...agreement reached between the parties is as follows: (a) amendments to conditions 1.2, 13.1, 26.7, 26.8, 26.10 and 31.1, and the insertion of a new condition 13.1.1, that relate to the formation and funding of Drainage Reserves. The Council will be responsible for the preparation of any required landscaping and development plans, the undertaking of the works (including landscaping), and the preparation of as-built plans and DPIL will pay the agreed cash contribution amounts to the...

2. OIA-110144.pdf [pdf, 5.5 MB]

   ...commitment 7. On 27 March, we wrote to you to let you know that the Ministry needed to extend the timeframe to respond to your request under section 15A(1)(b) of the Act, as consultations necessary to make a decision on your request are such that a proper response could not reasonably be made within the original time limit. We advised you that a response would be sent to you no later than 9 April 2024. We have excluded all purely administrative correspondence from the scope of your reque...

3. Rec-Recap-Q3-2022.pdf [pdf, 691 KB]

   ...education initiatives, the implementation of warning labels on products and media awareness campaigns.6 VII. The Report also suggested that legislation be changed to control the display and age of purchase for butane products and to strengthen retailer responsibility to be more aware of such products and more responsible in how they are displayed.7 VIII. I note that while there have been no legislative changes restricting the age of purchase for butane products in New Zealand, many...

4. CAC20002 v Gollins [2015] NZREADT 26 [pdf, 385 KB]

   ...had Mr O’Styke sign and back-dated an agency agreement) and Mr Gollins must be penalised by the Tribunal at a level commensurate with this finding of disgraceful conduct. [9] The Complaints Assessment Committee submits that the only appropriate response to Mr Gollin’s conduct is a period of suspension. They seek an order of suspension for between three and nine months. [10] In the alternative, they seek the maximum fine of $15,000. [11] The Complaints Assessment Committee al...

5. The Trustees of Oweta 4B v Riki - Oweta 4B (2012) 21 Tairawhiti MB 190 (21 TRW 190) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...May 1980, when it was vested into eight owners with a total of 968.571 shares. 1 There are now 13 listed owners in the block, however two are deceased. [2] In 1988, the Māori Trustee was appointed under s 438(2) by Judge Ross Russell as the responsible trustee. The Māori Trustee’s role was to make an application to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries for compensation for any damage to the block caused by Cyclone Bola. 2 Unfortunately, it appears that no money was ever...

6. Vailea v Hakaoro [2016] NZIACDT 8 (02 February 2016) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...standards during the course of Mr Hakaoro’s engagement. Namely: Negligence [6.1] That Mr Hakaoro was negligent, as he failed to prepare the section 61 requests when he had instructions to do so, and the complainant paid him to do so. His first response 3 was some 11 months after the complainant and her family had first been in New Zealand unlawfully. Negligence is a ground for complaint under section 44(2)(a). [6.2] The negligence lay in: [6.2.1] Not preparing the se...

7. Johnston & Vining Realty Group Ltd v CAC 20002 & Reid [2013] NZREADT 82 [pdf, 37 KB]

   ...disproportionate to the level of culpability the Tribunal found against the applicant when upholding the Committee’s finding of unsatisfactory conduct against the applicant. (ii) the applicant was not found to have acted in bad faith; rather acted very responsibly towards the vendor in this case (refer paragraph [38] of the Tribunal’s decision). Accordingly, protection of the public interest will not be jeopardised by non-publication of the applicant’s name. (iii) the Tribunal i...

8. Nuku v Hawea - Poukawa 13B (2011) 10 Takitimu MB 107 (10 TKT 107) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...owners by a considerable margin was that the Trust should not suffer any further by contributing towards the costs of the former trustees. [9] Ms Bennett pointed to the fact that the Māori Trustee had issued notices to 700 owners for which responses were received for approximately 100. By a significant margin those responses did not support use of trust funds to pay the costs awarded against the former trustees. Regarding my suggestion that a further poll of owners could be tak...

9. EU v VK LCRO 233 / 2010 (9 August 2011) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...forthright, and not to deny that it upset the Applicant. This was inevitable in the circumstances that the respective clients were unable, or unwilling, to reach agreement on many issues involving their daughter. Each perceived the other to be responsible for tensions experienced by the child due to that person‟s failure to co-operate. [26] A lawyer‟s professionalism is not however tested in terms of whether or not letters he or she writes to another lawyer upsets that lawyer...

10. O'Connor v Macdee McLennon Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 14 [pdf, 170 KB]

    ...Porirua. There is no dispute that it is a leaky home. The house was built in 1997-98. [2] The first respondent, MacDee McLennan Construction Limited and the second respondent, Duncan McLennan were respectively the builder and the director responsible for the work. They provided a statement of defence. At the hearing they accepted the outcome of the hearing and took no further part in the process. The Tribunal was advised that MacDee McLennan Construction Limited was insolvent...