Search Results

1. Webber v Webber - Motungarara A1B and A2 (2023) 468 Aotea MB 90 (469 AOT 90) [pdf, 305 KB]

   ...135 (143 TTK 135) at [32] – [34]. 16 Emphasis added. 17 Section 30(1)(d) of the Māori Affairs Act 1953. 18 Norman v Committee of Management of Muriwhenua Inc [1993] MAC Taitokerau Appeal No 1993/11 at 344. Emphasis added. 468 Aotea MB 101 Mandatory injunctions [34] Section 19(1)(ba) of the Act came into force on 6 February 2021. It allows the Court to grant injunctions to require any person to remove structures or objects from, reinstate any structure or object to...

2. [2023] NZREADT 16 - CAC 1901 v KC (3 July 2023) [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...person may have when assessing the conduct of the … defendant. 2 Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s 105. 3 Section 109(1). 4 Section 109(4). 5 Section 110. 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [101]–[102] and [112]. 7 Morton-Jones v Real Estate Agents Authority [2016] NZHC 1804. 10 [59] So, in summary, the Tribunal must find on balance of probabilities that the conduct of the … defendant represented a marked or serious...

3. Julian v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZACC 115 (16 July 2024) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...decision. Dr Walker noted the case study cited by Dr Timmings and he commented: In the case series above a series of events was not listed as a potential cause of spinal cord infarction. A history of 1 or more vascular risk factors was present in 101 patients (76%); hypertension 61(46%); hyperlipdemia, 57 (43%); and diabetes mellitus, 21 (16%). Co- occurring vascular disorders included coronary artery disease, 14(11%); peripheral vascular disease, 10(8%), atrial fibrillation, 8(6%);...

4. [2024] NZREADT 01 - CAC 2106 v Pang (8 January 2024) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...proceeded with reckless indifference as to whether it was so or not. Indeed, to conclude otherwise would all too obviously put a premium on ignorance. 8 Section 110. 9 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [101]–[102] and [112]. 10 Zaitman v Law Institute of Victoria BC9401319 (9 December 1994) (VSC) per Phillips J, approved in Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 20004) v Clark [2013] NZREADT 62 at [70]–[71]. 9 [37] It is al...

5. MOJ0504-Making-a-parenting-plan-workbook-Arabic.pdf [pdf, 2.8 MB]

   ...91: Weekly plan - Name 92: Weekly plan - Name 93: Weekly plan - Name 94: Weekly plan - Name 95: Weekly plan - Name 96: Weekly plan - Name 97: Weekly plan - Name 98: Weekly plan - Name 99: Weekly plan - Name 100: Weekly plan - Name 101: Weekly plan - Name 102: Weekly plan - Name 103: Weekly plan - Name 104: Weekly plan - Name 105: Weekly plan - Name 106: Weekly plan - Name 107: Weekly plan - Name 108: Weekly plan - Name 109: Weekly plan - Name 110: Weekly...

6. LCRO 208/2021 PK v GH (13 June 2023) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...consulted by Mr WC about insurance obligations and Mr PK had provided him with the same advice that he was giving to Mrs GH. On that basis therefore, the interests of Mrs GH and Mr WC coincided, and it does not amount to a conflict of interests. [101] In this regard, I concur with the determination of the Committee to take no further action. Other complaints [102] As noted above at [70] the Committee has not addressed Mrs GH’s complaints that Mr PK was discourteous and ha...

7. [2025] NZIACDT 21 – KA v Wen (5 March 2025) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 11 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act, s 50. 12 Section 51(1). 13 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] and [151]. 14 At [97], [101]–[102] and [112]. 9 From the client [31] The client has not filed any submissions or evidence. From Immigration NZ [32] The Tribunal has not received any submissions or evidence from Immigration NZ. From the adviser...

8. LCRO 180/2022 HB v UC and JW (26 November 2024) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...complaint pursuant to s 138(1)(f) of the Act. Mr HB has an adequate remedy that it would be reasonable for him to take, namely, pursuing [Building Firm A], the vendor of the property sold to him, for breach of the warranty. Anonymised publication [101] Pursuant to s 206(4) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, I direct that this decision be published in an anonymised format on the website of this Office. [102] I also authorise the respondents to provide a copy of this decision to Ms A...

9. Ryan v Accident Compensation Corporation (Impairment Assessment) [2025] NZACC 015 (28 January 2025) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...examination findings with dysmetria and without evidence to support significant radiculopathy, such as wasting or loss of reflexes, the Diagnosis Related Estimate (DRE) of lumbosacral impairment according to T72, p110 and the examples of pages 101 – 103, fits category two, which gives an impairment of 5%. [26] Dr Kanji then considered apportionment and stated– Based on surgery in 2013 to address lytic spondylolisthesis plus L4/5 disc degeneration and right radiculopathy, w...

10. LCRO 78/2023 CQ v KV (20 May 2025) [pdf, 218 KB]

    ...borrowing had been reduced, which Ms HW would not have contributed to.27 [100] A discussion between Mr CQ and a lawyer instructed by Ms KV would likely have exposed the unfair nature of the proposed arrangement and provided some protection for her. [101] I agree with the Committee, when it describes Mr CQ’s failings as ‘serious’.28 26 Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Harper [2020] NZLCDT 29. 27 The amount of rental paid by Ms HW is unknown. 28 Standards Committee determi...