Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 237 Mangawhai Matters Incorporated v Kaipara District Council [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...Operative District Plan, in combination with a site-specific precinct (known as the Cove Road North Precinct) comprised of a suite of objectives, policies, and rules to guide development. The purpose of having a bespoke suite of provisions is to protect the ecological features while promoting a high-quality urban design appropriate to this particular land. [4] PPC83 rezoning the area from Rural to Residential is consistent with the future growth of Mangawhai anticipated under the S...

2. Carter v Tulip Holdings Ltd [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...19 LIABILITY FOR LOSS CAUSED BY THE CLAIMANTS’ DWELLING BEING A LEAKY BUILDING 23 The liability of the First respondent, THL, in contract 23 The liability of the Fifth respondent, Brown Day, in tort 27 • The standard of care 28 • Evidence of the standard 29 • The standard of plans and specifications generally 30 CLAIM NO.00692 – CARTER DETERMINATION.doc 3 • The standard of the plans and specifications of Brown Day 37 �...

3. King v Commissioner of Police [2023] NZHRRT 19 [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...TANGATA 2 adjusted his life to try to avoid these situations. [2] In early 2013 Mr King’s partner ended their long-term relationship. Following this at various times in 2013 and 2015 Mr King was arrested for trespass and breaches of a protection order and detained in Police custody. This proceeding concerns ten separate occasions, all in 2013 except one, when Mr King was in Police custody and because he could not see airflow suffered severe claustrophobia symptoms. Mr King cla...

4. LCRO 201/2021 DK obo The LK Estate v BY and FM (31 July 2023) [pdf, 305 KB]

   ...complaints brought by the Bar ... [63] He did go on to say that: But it has also been said that res judicata or double jeopardy principles may not apply to disciplinary bodies because their “disciplinary requirements serve purposes essential to the protection of the public, which are deemed remedial, rather than punitive”: Spencer v Maryland State Board of Pharmacy, 846 A 2d 341, 352 (Maryland Court of Appeals, 2003); cf Re Fisher, 202 P 3d 1186, 1199 (Sup Ct, Colorado, 2009). [6...

5. Recommendations recap - issue 5 [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...Recommendations recap covers a six-month period and includes 98 coronial cases where recommendations have been made. These findings were released by a coroner between 1 October 2012 and 31 March 2013. 1 Adverse effects or reactions to medical/surgical care 6 Aged and infirm care 9 Care facilities (other) 9 Child deaths 10 Deaths in custody 15 Drugs, alcohol or substance abuse 20 Electrocution 21 Fall 21 Fire-related 23 Mental health issues 25 Natural causes 26 Ov...

6. Thompson v Van Wijk (Variation of Non-Publication Orders) [2020] NZHRRT 46 [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...affidavit sworn by her on 11 November 2020. As summarised in Ms Taefi’s memorandum dated 17 November 2020 at para 16 those reasons are: a. The plaintiff intends to participate in the faith-based redress hearing in the Royal Commission into Abuse in Care on 7 December 2020. b. The plaintiff is advocating for survivors of abuse in faith-based settings and assisting churches to prevent sexual harassment and abuse. She is finding it difficult to do this, while maintaining her anonymity....

7. Ha v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 412) and Griffiths [2018] NZREADT 57 [pdf, 369 KB]

   ...made it likely that Mr Griffiths would attract more than one commission in the same transaction. 1.2 The Committee’s decision was made with reference to rr 9.3, 9.10 and 9.14 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (2012 Rules). It is acknowledged that Mr Ha’s conduct predates these Rules coming into force. Rules 9.4 and 9.11 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2009 (2009 Rules) are applicable....

8. BQ v CR LCRO 281/2012 (28 August 2014) [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...112 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. In my view, a lawyer’s trust account records are the property of the lawyer and not the client. [15] Of course, the trust account records contain confidential information that Mr CR has a duty to protect and hold in strict confidence.6 However, if Mr CR had complied with his reporting obligations then this information would have already been provided to Mr BQ.7 [16] As a further comment in this matter, and I stress this factor is not...

9. NI v FI & MI & GI [2023] NZDT 592 (13 October 2023) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...respondent is FI’s son, and the third respondent is FI’s partner. 3. NI claims he saw the respondents move the aircraft and he noticed damage to the wings the same day. Further damage was incurred as the aircraft was left outside the shed unprotected from the weather. 4. NI believes the respondents moved his aircraft some time in the first half of 2021, however he did not raise the issue of damage with them until December 2021 when he sent them a letter asking for compensation...

10. ND v VC LCRO 7 / 2012 (15 June 2012) [pdf, 74 KB]

    ...the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act.” 2 [2] The Applicant objected to this language and filed a complaint with the New Zealand Law Society. He contended that the Practitioner had breached Chapter 2 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care, in particular Rule 2.7 which states: A lawyer must not threaten, expressly or by implication, to make any accusation against a person or to disclose something about any person for an improper purpose. [3] The Standards Committee consi...