Search Results

1. UH v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 45 (2 February 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...for damage. 3. UH believes D Ltd was in breach of the contract by failing to provide services to him as agreed. He seeks a refund of the $1,500.00 charge. 4. D Ltd was represented at the hearing by General Manager FA. D Ltd maintains UH is responsible for damage, and that his response was inappropriate and disproportionate to his circumstances. 5. The issues to be resolved are: a. Did D Ltd provide services as contracted and with reasonable care and skill? b. In relation...

2. SU & WH v BT [2024] NZDT 79 (26 February 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...vehicle was written off, the insurers are claiming the lower cost of a cost to repair of $12,761.09, $644.00 for towing ($560.00 plus GST) and $209.30 for 7 days storage @$26.00 a day plus GST. 3. The issues to be determined are: a. Was BT responsible for the collision? b. If so, what are the reasonable costs associated with the collision that she ought to pay? Was BT responsible for the collision? 4. Under the law of negligence, drivers must take care not to drive in a man...

3. KT v EG [2024] NZDT 572 (28 May 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...and his partner had not had exclusive use of these areas, had cleaned before they left. He said that parts of the bathroom were stained and they had left it cleaner than when they moved in four weeks earlier. 8. It is not possible to tell who is responsible for the spill in the fridge, the fingerprints on the microwave or the state of the oven. This is a common area and the parties have differing recollections of how it was used and who used it. The bathroom area was used predominantly...

4. YD & YA v CU Ltd [2024] NZDT 491 (17 June 2024) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...when requested in December 2021? If so, what loss was suffered, if any? b) Did CU Ltd breach the contract in relation to the garage door repairs? If so, what damages are payable? c) Should CU Ltd refund the HRV servicing charge? d) Is CU Ltd responsible to pay for damage to the property not charged to the tenants? e) Did CU Ltd cause delay in re-tenanting the property by delaying getting quotations for the asbestos work or by cancelling the property management agreement without notic...

5. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Peters [2012] NZLCDT 18 [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...that Mr Peters had failed to maintain contact with his client following sentencing and after an indication of a wish to appeal had been given; that Mr Peters did not see his client until nearly 17 months after sentencing, and that was in 4 response to the complaint made; and that his client’s father had been making considerable effort to have Mr Peters make contact with his son to discuss the appeal to no avail prior to the complaint being made. [11] The committee did not...

6. Otago Standards Committee v Copland [2019] NZLCDT 29 [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...count in favour of the practitioner so too would acknowledgement of error, wrongdoing, expressions of remorse and contrition. For example, immediate acknowledgement of wrongdoing apology to a complainant, genuine remorse, contrition and acceptance of responsibility as a proper response to the Law Society inquiry can be seen as substantial mitigating matters and justify lenient penalties. [14] We accept that those factors are present in this case and justify a more merciful approach....

7. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Ellis [2018] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...misconduct consisted of an accumulation of the following: (a) His persistent failure to comply with his reporting obligations under reg 12(7) of the Trust Account Regulations; (b) His failure to acquaint himself with his most basic of trust accounting responsibilities; (c) His delegation of his trust accounting responsibilities which we found was wilful and reckless having regard to reg 16(4) of the Trust Account Regulations; (d) His adverse dealings with his client’s trust fu...

8. [2022] NZEnvC 169 NZ King Salmon v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 624 KB]

   THE NEW ZEALAND KING SALMON CO. LIMITED v MDC – DECLARATION DECISION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2022] NZEnvC 169 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an application for declarations under s311 of the Act BETWEEN THE NEW ZEALAND KING SALMON CO. LIMITED (ENV-2021-CHC-74) Applicant AND MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Sitting alone und

9. NZCVS Cycle 4 2020-21 Topical report - Controlling behaviours and help-seeking [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...controlling behaviours ..................................................................32 3.8 Perpetrators and victims by gender ......................................................................33 3.9 Perpetrators and “do not wish to answer” responses ............................................35 3.10 Context of harm ....................................................................................................35 3.11 Help-seeking by victims for family violence ...........

10. 2023-07-28-WCO-Final-Report-Recommendation.pdf [pdf, 5 MB]

    ...significant detail in explaining the processes of evaluation that led to our evidential findings in support of the recommendations in this Report. That is with a view to this Report also serving TDC and the applicants and other parties in their response to the WCO. That is particularly in terms of assisting a better understanding of catchment dynamics so as to soundly underpin the planning response to the WCO. Jurisdictional scope and other legal issues [36] In regard to the se...