Search Results

1. [2008] NZEmpC WC 10/08 Monteith v Eagle [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...2007, Mrs Monteith filed the application for extension of time currently before the Court. It appears this was served on Ms Eagle shortly afterwards but the registrar was not advised of the date. [9] Ms Eagle initially took no steps in response to the application although it followed the standard form including a notice advising Ms Eagle that, if she wished to oppose the application, she must file written notice to that effect within 14 days. [10] In the absence of a resp...

2. Choudhary v Smith [2015] NZIACDT 98 (10 December 2015) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...to do. Where a professional person is unwell and fails to get medical attention, it is not a surprising outcome. However, neither is it necessarily a matter of complete justification, or excuse. It is important that professional service providers responsibly monitor factors affecting their ability to deliver services to their clients. The dishonestly involved a misrepresentation relating to a matter Mr Smith failed to progress. While serious, a deception to hide that a person is not copin...

3. Hettige & Gerreyn v Smith [2015] NZIACDT 99 (10 December 2015) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...to do. Where a professional person is unwell and fails to get medical attention, it is not a surprising outcome. However, neither is it necessarily a matter of complete justification, or excuse. It is important that professional service providers responsibly monitor factors affecting their ability to deliver services to their clients. The dishonesty involved a misrepresentation relating to a matter Mr Smith failed to progress. While serious, a deception to hide that a person is not coping...

4. Allen v Smith [2015] NZIACDT 97 (10 December 2015) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...to do. Where a professional person is unwell and fails to get medical attention, it is not a surprising outcome. However, neither is it necessarily a matter of complete justification, or excuse. It is important that professional service providers responsibly monitor factors affecting their ability to deliver services to their clients. The dishonesty involved a misrepresentation relating to a matter Mr Smith failed to progress. While serious, a deception to hide that a person is not coping...

5. February v Smith [2015] NZIACDT 100 (10 December 2015) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...to do. Where a professional person is unwell and fails to get medical attention, it is not a surprising outcome. However, neither is it necessarily a matter of complete justification, or excuse. It is important that professional service providers responsibly monitor factors affecting their ability to deliver services to their clients. The dishonesty involved a misrepresentation relating to a matter Mr Smith failed to progress. While serious, a deception to hide that a person is not coping...

6. Sharp & Anor v CAC 20006 & Anor [2013] NZREADT 96 [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...denied meeting Mr Sharp. [18] Finally the Tribunal heard from Lynette Jordan. Ms Jordan was the licensee at the time the section was sold. She told the Tribunal that she was not certain how the error concerning the power had arisen but took full responsibility for the problem with the purchaser and apologised unreservedly to the Sharps for the mistake. She denied that anyone had written over the 2009 Listing Agreements. She said that it would be quite improper for anyone to have wri...

7. CAC 10054 v Subritzky [2012] NZREADT 20 [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...“Particulars : On 18 December 2009 [and on 2 August 2010], at 45G Cavendish Drive, Manukau, or thereabouts, the defendant behaved in a verbally and physically threatening or aggressive manner towards the complainant.” The Defendant’s Response to the Charge [4] Part of the defendant’s 18 May 2011 written response to the above charges reads as follows: “I believe I am not guilty of misconduct under s.73(a) of the REAA (2008). I deny that I responded in a way unwarra...

8. Ali v CAC302 & Anor [2016] NZREADT 10 [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...him with the address of the property. On 12 August Mr Limisella texted Mr Ali and asked “How much is the vendor looking for for the Hollyford Drive property?”. Mr Ali responded “High $400K plus”. He explained in evidence that he gave this response to Mr Limisella because he knew that Ms Devi had had an offer of $490,000 for the property some months before. On 13 August Mr Ali showed Mr Limisella through the property. Mr Limisella told Mr Ali that he wanted to make an offer....

9. BQ v YE LCRO 188 / 2010 (1 April 2011) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...based on the facts given”. [33] I have carefully reviewed the letter of [date] September 2009 to the Practitioner. In that letter the Applicant refers to the Dominion Post article and records his contention that based on that, the Council had a responsibility to sell the land to him. He recounts the long history of correspondence with Council about the matter and records his responses to the issues raised by Council. At the foot of page 3 of his letter he states:- “I am ther...

10. GK v TV LCRO 44 / 2011 (24 November 2011) [pdf, 74 KB]

    ...an agreement, and subsequently acts for the other party in respect of a different matter. By acting for Ms GK in connection with the establishment of her Trust and the transfer of the property(ies) to the Trust, Mr TV did not thereby assume a responsibility to her in connection with the relationship property agreement. [30] He certainly had obligations to ensure that Ms GK had legal ownership of the property(ies) being transferred to the Trust. Those obligations were fulfilled and...