Search Results

1. Complaint Assessment Committee 403 v Licensee B [2017] NZREADT 21 [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...occupations is not to punish the practitioner for misbehaviour, although it may have that effect, but to ensure appropriate standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned. [11] The principal purpose of the Act is to “promote and protect the interests of consumers in respect of transactions that relate to real estate and to promote public 3 Substantive decision, at [73]. 4 Substantive decision, at [74]. 5...

2. [2024] NZREADT 35 – CAC 2108 v Barfoot Thompson (20 September 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...misconduct under s 73(c)(iii) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (the Act) in that Barfoot Greenlane’s conduct constituted a wilful or reckless contravention of s 50 of the Act and r 8.3 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care Rules 2012) (the Rules). [2] On 17 May 2024, the parties filed a joint memorandum confirming that a resolution had been reached and that Barfoot Greenlane admitted that its conduct amounted to unsatisfactory conduct under s 72(b)...

3. [2024] NZEmpC 231Aurecon New Zealand Limited v Dowlut [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...claim under the Equal Pay Act 1972, in particular on the basis that she has been unlawfully discriminated against (s161(1)(qd) of the Act). (f) Whether Aurecon retaliated or threatened to retaliate against Ms Dowlut in breach of s 21 of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 because Ms Dowlut made or intended to make a protected disclosure. (g) Whether Ms Dowlut was unjustifiably dismissed from her employment with Aurecon. … [14] The Authority...

4. [2023] NZREADT 1 - CAC 1904 v Bright (16 January 2023) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...(PENALTY) Dated 16 January 2023 2 INTRODUCTION [1] In a decision issued on 8 November 2022, the Tribunal found Mr Bright guilty of the reckless contravention of r 6.3 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (the Rules). This amounted to misconduct pursuant to s 73(c)(iii) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (the Act). [2] The Tribunal will now determine the penalty. BACKGROUND [3] The background facts, as found by the...

5. [2023] NZREADT 24 - CAC 2103 v Lieven (21 August 2023) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...regarded by agents of good standing, or reasonable members of the public, as disgraceful; and/or 2 [Redacted]. 6 (ii) consists of a wilful or reckless contravention of r 6.3 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (the Rules). (b) Charge 2 (as an alternative to charge 1): unsatisfactory conduct under s 72(a) and/or s 72(b) and/or s 72(d) of the Act, namely conduct that: (i) falls short of the standard that a reasonable member of...

6. Auckland Standards Committee v Fendall [2012] NZLCDT 1 [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...amount. She also repaid the Ministry of Justice $4,123 it had been overcharged. [12] The Legal Services Agency concluded, following the investigations, that there was no dishonesty. It accepted that it was a matter of failure to take proper care when recording time and subsequently invoicing charges based on that incorrect time record. This also appears to have been the view of the Serious Fraud Office, to whom a complaint about Ms Fendall’s invoicing practices had been made, as...

7. CAC 2106 v Hu [2024] NZREADT 36 (23 September 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...agreement to share his commission with the purchaser unknown to his clients, the vendors. This breach of his fiduciary obligation of loyalty to the vendors contravened rr 6.1 and 6.3 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (the Rules). It was found to be unsatisfactory conduct under s 72(b) and (d) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (the Act). [2] The Tribunal will now determine the penalty. BACKGROUND [3] The background narrative, as fo...

8. [2019] NZEnvC 056 Mackenzie District Council [pdf, 7.3 MB]

   ...Act.'9 Indeed, under this construction, Simons Pass would be permitted to change the natural environment while the Regional Council's decision to grant the water permit was still under appeal. 20 Pending the determination of the appeals, the protection afforded the ONL, and more generally the natural '4 That is, the water permit had not lapsed. '5 Decision A118/2006, Auckland , 28 August 2006 at [7]. '6 Decision C208/2001, Christchurch, 21 November 2001 at [...

9. [2009] NZEmpC AC 49/09 Norske Skog Tasman Ltd v Manufacturing and Construction Workers Union & Anor [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...AND JUDGE BS TRAVIS (Given by Chief Judge GL Colgan) [1] This case concerns the requirement of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (“the Act”) that every employment agreement must contain an employee protection provision (“EPP”) to take effect if the employer restructures its business. The key issue is whether the employer can proceed with restructuring if no such provision has been agreed. [2] In this case, the Authority determi...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 176 Waimarino Queenstown Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 942 KB]

    ...consent process, particularly as it was apparent that the Council had not been monitoring these specific outcomes since the first subdivision consent was granted in 2006. [26] The undomesticated and development areas, once identified, are to be protected by way of a consent notice registered against the title to the lots authorised by the subdivision consent. That protection is intended to be for the benefit of all lot holders and the Council (see r 27.7.3, and corresponding land u...