Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Harder [2022] NZLCDT 55 (23 December 2022) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...Aggravating and mitigating factors [10] There were no aggravating factors. [11] There are a number of relevant mitigating features: 1. The cooperation with the Standards Committee from the outset and the practitioner’s fast acceptance of responsibility, expression of regret and remorse and apology stand him in good stead. 2. Mr Harder has taken steps to examine with both peers and other professionals, what it was that led him to this misstep and therefore what can prevent...

2. UN & JI v NB Ltd [2022] NZDT 32 (23 March 2022) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...one from NB Ltd would, or should, have suspected that, even if the previous, demolished, the garage had encroached on the neighbouring land, the new garage had not been confined within the applicants’ boundary. In any event, said UN, it was the responsibility of TD to check and advise the applicants on legal matters concerning the land. [7] TD said that the applicants when they sought her advice before buying the property, had provided her with the information pack that they had receiv...

3. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 v Revell [2022] NZLCDT 40 (9 November 2022) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...his fitness to practise and/or tends to bring the profession into disrepute. [3] The first charge concerned tax returns for the ten tax years 2007/8 to March 2017. Mr Revell, who had been in partnership, clung to the stance that his partner was responsible for all tax matters. This stance is not tenable, given the many approaches and demands he received from IRD from 2010 onwards. Despite those multiple warnings, Mr Revell ignored the mounting problem. He pleaded guilty on the da...

4. TD v KH [2023] NZDT 183 (18 April 2023) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...TD entitled to? Did KH misrepresent the condition of the ute to TD? 5. TD purchased the ute privately from KH. There are no warranties or guarantees implied in a private sale. The basic rule is “buyer beware”, which means the buyer is responsible to carry out their own due diligence and is responsible for their own purchasing decision. A seller in a private sale is not obliged to point out faults or problems but statements made and answers to questions by the seller can be rel...

5. [2023] NZEnvC 042 The Bears Home Project Management Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...joined the proceedings under s 274 of the Act. Ngā Maunga Whakahii o Kaipara Development Trust support the s 116 application, stating commencement of the resource consent application subject to appeal will enable implementation of Kaitiakitanga responsibilities in the consent granted (with reference to conditions 6, 7 – 12 and 13), which is an integral part of Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara’s role and responsibilities as kaitiaki. Evaluation When considering a s 116 application...

6. BT v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 201 (8 April 2024) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...where there has been no agreement or statement about the kind of contract, it is a contract for carriage “at limited carrier’s risk”. (section 249(3)(a)). The obligations owed are set out in sections 256 to 259 which say: a. The loss is the responsibility of the contracting carrier (s256): b. The responsibility of the carrier begins when the goods are accepted for carriage (s257). In this case, that means U Ltd became responsible when the car was dropped off by the seller. c...

7. MO & HD v IE Ltd [2022] NZDT 285 (23 November 2022) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...vague about what it did mean. 9. However, on reviewing the chain of messages, I note that 22 seconds before HD’s message quoted above in this paragraph, she had written “I don’t want to delay the architect or designer starting”. FU’s response makes more sense grammatically as a response to the statement about a delay in starting than to the statement about going over budget, and given the close proximity in time of all the messages, may even have been a cross-post. 10....

8. 2023-09-26-Evidence-of-Justine-Bennett-Water-Quality.PDF [PDF, 276 KB]

   ................................................................................ 5 Operations and Maintenance Plan ................................................................ 6 Amendment to conditions ............................................................................. 7 E. RESPONSE TO SECTION 274 PARTY EVIDENCE .................................................... 7 Amendment to conditions ............................................................................. 8 F. CO...

9. AM v JO Ltd & Ors [2024] NZDT 496 (4 June 2024) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...employment. He said this was illegal and exploitative. 21. I find there was a lack of reasonable care and skill from JO Ltd. I recognise JO Ltd’s point that it did not have any control over what was offered by the employer. However, it still has a responsibility to make adequate enquiries into the suitability of potential job offers prior to suggesting them to clients. 22. JO Ltd said it asked the restaurant owner about the type of person required for the job, and checked to se...

10. OIA-113476.pdf [pdf, 823 KB]

    ...other Department of Corrections and Police staff. This information is contained in the appendix. If you require any further information, please contact Media & Social Media Manager Joe Locke at media@justice.govt.nz. Please note that this response, with your personal details removed, may be published on the Ministry website at: justice.govt.nz/about/official-information-act-requests/oia-responses/. If you are not satisfied with this response, you have the right to make a complaint...