Search Results

1. Albert v Hogg - Mangamuka East B3 (2020) 209 Taitokerau MB 162 (209 TTK 162) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...Albert: (i) Mangamuka East D1; (ii) Mangamuka East B3; (iii) Mangamuka West 3U2; (iv) Rangihamama X3A and Omapere Taraire E (Aggregated). 3. Pursuant to ss 220 and 222 appointing Susan Rakena, Trevor Albert, Myra Hogg and Arthur Albert as responsible trustees of the Joseph and Myra Albert Whānau Trust. [7] On 23 May 2013, an order was granted varying the terms of trust to include further interests, being Mangamuka West 3S 2C Section 1. Prior to the vesting of this land in...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v O'Boyle [2021] NZLCDT 27 (29 October 2021) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...are required to carefully consider alternatives to striking off a practitioner. If the purposes of imposing disciplinary sanctions can be achieved short of striking off then it is the lesser alternative that should be adopted as the proportionate response. That is “the least restrictive outcome” principle applicable in criminal sentencing. In the end, however, the test is whether a practitioner is a fit and proper person to continue in practice. If not, striking off should follow. If...

3. [2023] NZEmpC 64 Whangamata Golf Club Inc v Harwood [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...procedurally unjustified in light of 1 Harwood v Whangamata Golf Club Inc [2022] NZERA 693 (Member Urlich). sch 3A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). Schedule 3A was a health and safety provision enacted under the COVID-19 Response (Vaccinations) Legislation Act 2021 which enabled an employee’s employment to be terminated if that person was unable to comply with any relevant duty as to vaccination provided by the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020.2...

4. [2022] NZIACDT 21 - CT v Nandan (18 August 2022) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...He then texted her a lot of times but she did not reply. [11] According to the complainant, he called Immigration New Zealand (Immigration NZ) and was told no application had been made. He waited until 25 December but there was no positive response from her. She was supporting his employer in those three to four months. She did not reply to his texts and calls. This caused mental stress for him and his family. The complainant said he had been left with only three months befor...

5. [2023] NZREADT 13 - CAC v Sun (9 June 2023) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...developer] in confidence. She should not have passed this information onto [Purchaser] and had no authority to do so. [Property developer] did not give Ms Sun permission to disclose the information. [21] The Tribunal further found that Ms Sun had a responsibility as the salesperson to ensure that the ASPs were correct and completed in all respects before they were signed by the parties. It was of concern that Ms Sun directed someone else at [Real estate company] to fill out the...

6. [2024] NZREADT 05 CAC v Pang (6 March 2024) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...Pang warranting a departure from cancellation. As for mitigating factors, aside from his lack of previous disciplinary history, Mr Pang’s lack of meaningful engagement in the proceedings means there is no evidence as to whether he accepts full responsibility for his offending or that he has remorse or insight into his offending or any willingness to undertake rehabilitative steps. There lies a real risk that similar conduct might be engaged in again. [19] Having regard to the...

7. LCRO 27/2024 VF v SR and BR (23 May 2025) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...property and made the decision to settle the purchase so that they were able to move into the property, which in hindsight benefited them as they were able to take possession just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. [40] Mr VF says he should not be responsible for a commercial decision taken by his clients. [41] Mr VF also included a decision of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal in support of his submissions. (I make no further mention of that decision as the facts of...

8. LCRO 98/2022 DC v HT (20 December 2024) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...unprofessional work ethics. DC also sought compensation. Standards Committee processes [15] DC’s complaint was forwarded to HT on 16 May 2022. In the covering email, the Complaints Service indicated that the Committee did not, at that stage, require any response from him and that if further information was needed he would be contacted. [16] HT does not appear to have formally responded to DC’s complaint. Standards Committee decision [17] The Committee identified the conduct is...

9. BO v NC Ltd [2024] NZDT 13 (30 January 2024) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...applicant told the Tribunal that neither he nor his partner were treated with respect when CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 5 of 6 they raised these issues on multiple occasions. However, the written evidence shows that the respondent was generally responsive to the applicant and the issues he raised. This communication with the applicant was not as frequent as the applicant would have liked and was often initiated by him, but the respondent agreed with the applicant to resolve the is...

10. Final Env-Reg-Report-2023-24 [pdf, 448 KB]

    ...conferences, workshops, and webinars throughout the year. E.49 9 | P a g e 3.0 Court’s performance 3.1 The roles of the Environment Court Judiciary and the Ministry The Chief Environment Court Judge has an overriding duty and responsibility under the RMA for the expeditious discharge of the business of the court. In conjunction with the other Environment Court Judges, the Chief Environment Court Judge determines the day- to-day case-flow management strateg...