Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Gardner [2017] NZLCDT 17 [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...required is "more than" mere negligence (noting that mere negligence may now meet the s 214(b) test for unacceptable conduct). Section 214(c) in the Act is equivalent to ss 106(3)(c) and 112(1)(c) of the 1982 Act. I repeat what the Court of Appeal said in the Auckland W of what was then s 112(1)(c) negligence: [41] ... It is common ground that not every act of negligence will be such as to warrant disciplinary action. That is plain from the use of the words "of such a d...

2. BU v YA LCRO 153 / 2010 (21 April 2011) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...the Committee does not understand the law. [19] He considers that in evaluating the complaint concerning the lodgement of the Notice of Claim, the Committee has applied the wrong test. He refers to a decision of Simperinghan v Martin (Court of Appeal) Wellington, CA 5/95, 2 June 1995. He notes that the requirement established by this case is that before lodging a caveat, a solicitor must have an “honest belief” that there is a registrable interest. [20] With regard to the ma...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 154 Webb v NZ Tramways & Public Passenger Transport Employees’ Union Inc [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...6 [1998] 2 NZLR 103 (HC) at 107. 7 [2006] NZAR 247 (HC). 8 [2004] 17 PRNZ 390 (CA). [23] There are, however, good reasons why caution should be shown about entertaining a moot appeal. The assumption which underpins our legal system is that legal propositions are best developed by the Courts in the context of real controversies. The facts and apparent merits of particular cases are not necessarily controlling consi

4. NQE v Tan [2013] NZIACDT 46 (01 August 2013) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...power to regulate its own procedure (section 49(1)). However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [57] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: [T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the right...

5. [2023] NZREADT 31 - CAC 2102 v Hoogwerf (2 November 2023) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...engagement of Mr Hoogwerf by a licensee be terminated and that no agent employ or engage him in connection with real estate agency work. [43] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. PUBLICATION [44] Having regard to the interests of the public in the transparency of the Tribunal and knowing of wrongdoing by licensees, it is appropriate to order publication of this decision.14 _...

6. Taka - Koparakore A32 A2 B3B (2016) 55 Takitimu 134 (55 TKT 134) [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...meeting. At the hui those present raised concerns about the site for the occupation order and access to the land. 7 Rudolph v Reti – Otetau B3A2 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 143 (2011 APPEAL 143) 8 Ibid 9 Brown v Māori Appellate Court [2001] 1 NZLR 87 (HC) http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/maori-land-court/documents/judgments/pdfs-maori-appellate-court-sittings/2011/Otetao%20B3A2.pdf/ 55 Tākitimu MB 138 [...

7. [2011] NZEmpC 59 Costley v Waimea Nurseries Ltd [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...for legal aid was sent on 4 February 2011. 6. The plaintiff was able to pay his solicitors a personal cheque for the filing fee on Monday, 7 February 2011 and confirmed that he wished to proceed. 7. The plaintiff’s counsel miscalculated the appeal period so that he saw the period for filing the challenge as expiring on Tuesday, 8 February 2011. ... [9] Ms Ironside submitted that the failure to file the statement of claim on time indicated a “careless, indifferent or cav...

8. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 NPI Trust Moana Te Waeroa [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...I can share my fish with you. And so I request from one Taniwha to another, that the Mana of this Court, upholds the Mana of the Waitangi Tribunal Court who uphold my own Mana as a Treaty Partner and ask that you digest the importance of my appeal. It should be noted that pre 2000, the various Crown agencies accepted representative of Waiheke Island at that time, was the late Hariata Gordon of Ngati Paoa. My father Mason Clarke aka Meihana Te Uri Karaka occupied the deputy cha...

9. Te Tii Waitangi B3 Trust (2011) 17 Taitokerau MB 294 (17 TTK 294) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...-and this is the forum for that to be addressed. H Rameka: No Sir it isn't. The beneficiaries are the owners of the land with respect to the Court, not this Court. But, as soon as I get your thing then I will know what timeframe I have to appeal. Thank you very much for hearing my korero. [11] Mr Rameka then left the hearing. [12] I have summarised Mr Rameka’s views as best as I can. Having seen and heard Mr Rameka in person I would describe his manner as belligerent a...

10. CAC 401 v Black & Wong [2016] NZREADT 42 [pdf, 149 KB]

    ...submissions on penalty to be received 15 working days thereafter. (c) The Authority may respond to any new matters raised in the defendants’ submissions two working days after the decision. [32] The Tribunal draws to the parties’ attention the appeal provisions of s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. ______________________________ Hon P Andrews Chairperson ______________________________ Ms K Davenport QC Deputy Chairperson _________________________...