Search Results

1. UJ v OO LCRO 143 / 2012 (9 April 2013) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...of that appeal, the sum of $36,250 and interest was to be paid to Ms UK, unless the outcome was that a lesser amount should be paid; c. Mr UJ was to execute an agreement to mortgage the property to Law Firm A, and a caveat was to be lodged to protect the agreement to mortgage. The purpose of this was to enable Law Firm A to use the undrawn portion of the Bank B loan to enable $9000 costs and any further costs to be paid to Ms UK at the conclusion of the High court appeal; d....

2. BORA Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill [pdf, 410 KB]

   ...information about products to the public and prescribes the manner in which this should be done. We consider that the information that must be provided to the public does not appear to be sufficiently "expressive" in content to attract the protection of section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act (freedom of expression). 4. Clause 35 of the Bill empowers Waste Control Authorities to make announced and unannounced inspections of waste transported to, or inspected by, the operators of a...

3. CAC 409 v Brady [2019] NZREADT 21 (23 May 2019) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...The charge [6] The Committee alleged that Mr Brady’s conduct constituted seriously incompetent or seriously negligent real estate agency work, in that he breached rr 5.1 and 9.1 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012, by advising Mr Derrick to delete clause 20, without verifying any of the information given to him by Mr Derrick, as to the year the building work was done, or discussing the matter with Mr Derrick’s solicitor. [7] The Com...

4. Chee v Stareast Investment Ltd [2010] NZWHT Auckland 33 [pdf, 298 KB]

   ................................................................................. 23 WHAT IS THE REMEDIAL WORK REQUIRED TO ADDRESS THE DEFECTS? .................................................................................................. 23 CAN DIRECTORS OF COMPANIES INVOLVED IN CONSTRUCTION OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO SUBSEQUENT OWNERS? .................................... 25 RESPONSIBILITY OF MR HUNG ............................................................... 26 RESPONSIBILITY OF...

5. LCRO 20/2017 AP v RE (20 December 2018) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...other issues arise indirectly, for example, with regard to the scope and terms of a contract of retainer. This possibility was contemplated by the Court of Appeal in Erwood at [45]. Therefore, where such an issue could arise, a court should be careful to ensure that nothing it did in the course of a judicial proceeding should cut across the jurisdiction and powers of the Standards Committee. [72] Bell AJ said: [36] … The policy that the courts should not allow their proceedings to...

6. Kennedy v Scanner Investments Ltd [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...detailed in the estimates by Octa Associates (submitted as an appendix to Mr O’Connor’s report). 4.3 The claims against Scanner are in tort and based on allegations of negligence. The Owners say that Scanner owed them a non-delegable duty of care to ensure that all building work was carried out in compliance with the building regulations. They claim that it breached that duty by failing to carry out, or have carried out, the building work in a compliant manner. 4.4 The...

7. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Sensible Sentencing Group Trust (Application for Interim Non-Publication Orders) [2013] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...Commissioner of Police in relation to the Privacy Act complaint made against the Commissioner. [21] Mr Judd submits that the conclusions reached by the Privacy Commissioner after a detailed investigation of the facts and after hearing the SSGT represent a careful and responsible analysis of the facts and that for the purpose of the interim order application those conclusions establish, at the very least, a strong arguable case that there has been a breach of Principles 6, 8 and 11 as all...

8. Aldridge & Ors as Trustees of the SL & KM Aldridge Family Trust v Boe [2012] NZWHT Auckland 27 [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...judgment, stated that I did not mention Mr Swarts return to the home (then occupied by the Boes) in 1999 to carry out the job of assisting with the erection of the pergola beams. [17] Mr Wright contends that: (i) Mr Swart had a general duty of care to remedy his faulty building work when coming back onto the building site to work on the pergola and (ii) his affixing of the pergola beams was defective and causative of damage. Mr Wright’s submission places reliance on John...

9. [2021] NZEnvC 034 Coneburn Preserve Holdings Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   ...drafting of policy 41.2.1.22; (c) Issue 3: the appropriateness of the additional homesites included in the Ch 41 structure plan; ( d) Issue 4: the Village Activity Area; and (e) Issue 5: the approach to the Peninsula Hill ONL/Peninsula Hill Landscape Protection Area overlay. [9] This decision is confined to Issues 2 and 3.9 [1 OJ As for the remaining issues: 8 9 10 (a) the appeal point for Issue 1 was withdrawn by Jacks Point; (b) Issue 4 remains live but is subject to the prop...

10. [2020] NZIACDT 42 - NMS v Mercado (1 October 2020) [pdf, 270 KB]

    ...to the complainant’s employment agreement, so that all her work was as a PA at DEFL. [33] On 29 June 2018, Mr Mercado advised the complainant that the visa officer may have erred in declining the visa. He said an appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) could be prepared. [34] An appeal to the IPT was filed on 2 July 2018. [35] The IPT issued a decision on 14 February 2019 declining the appeal. It was found that the complainant had not complied with the visa con...