Search Results

1. Wellington Standards Committee v Twigley [2016] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 601 KB]

   ...represented payment of those invoices. [35] While Mr Twigley contended he had his client’s authority to deduct the $10,000 he had no file note of such and accepted that that was a departure from his usual practice. He said that after some years of careful file noting, he was by this stage at a desperate phase and “fire fighting”. He accepted that would mean “unfortunate inferences” could be drawn. [36] Mr HP totally denied giving any such authority and the taking of the...

2. LCRO 158/2019 RL v BN, TG and VK (1 April 2021) [pdf, 604 KB]

   ...At hearing, Ms RL argued that she had been severely traumatised by her experience in working with the [Co 2] franchise and was vulnerable and not well placed to cope with the litigation. She considered that her lawyers had failed to adequately protect her and guide her through the litigation with careful and considered advice. Against this, it is argued for the lawyers that they had been successful in achieving what Ms RL had set out to achieve, namely to delay [Co 2]’s claim unti...

3. [2022] NZEmpC 101 UXK v Talent Propeller Ltd [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...intended position, Mr Upton pressed the previously made request for the witness summons which, he said, had been drafted by Talent. Ms Fechney strongly opposed the request, submitting that UXK’s health information was confidential and should be protected; and that questioning would be inappropriate. [25] On 13 May 2022, the Authority issued a minute dealing with this request in light of the parties’ submissions. [26] It recorded that Talent wished to question the two medica...

4. Richards - Karaka Huarua A and B (2004) 98 Whangārei 273 (98 WH 273) [pdf, 4.7 MB]

   ...account the location of any waahi tapu and areas of cultural significance. The Applicants would also take any necessary steps to safeguard waahi tapu sites identified on the area for partition; (d) any opposition to the Partition Application must be carefully weighed by the Court, taking into account all relevant circumstances including the level of actual beneficial owner opposition as compared with the views, however strongly felt, of non-owners. In any case, the Applicants shares outw...

5. [2019] NZEnvC 205 Upper Clutha Environmental Society Incorporated v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 15 MB]

   ...on plan changes .... .. ... ..... ................ ..... ...... ..... ....... .... ............ .... ... .... .... .. ... ....... ... ....... .. ............ .. .... .. 79 Evaluation of SP 3.3.24 and SP 3.3.30 and related matters of assessment and protection of values .................................................. .. .. .... ... ....... ... .... ....... .. ....... ..... .. 80 Evaluation of Strategic Policies on enablement of activities in Rural areas ...... ........ 86 Evaluation of SP...

6. Smitheram v Hanns [2010] NZWHT Wellington 24 [pdf, 483 KB]

   ...Code Compliance Certificate No. 1 pursuant to section 43 (2) of the Building Act 1991 in respect of the work under Building Consent SR39887. [14] During the course of construction documentation was addressed to the family trust, sometimes care of Roger Walker Limited, and forwarded to the trust‟s solicitors for payment. There were also discussions between the trust and the purchasers in relation to variations in the building works and later discussions in relation to faults...

7. Directory of Official Information P-R [pdf, 997 KB]

   ...a substantial and damaging effect on the environment and report to the House • undertake and encourage the collection and dissemination of information relating to the environment • encourage preventive measures and remedial actions for the protection of the environment. The Commissioner can obtain information, protect the confidentiality of that information where appropriate, report findings, and make recommendations. However, the Commissioner does not have the power to make any...

8. Song v CAC 20008 & Clement [2014] NZREADT 54 [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...Monday afternoon who told him there should not be a problem in getting a new title, which was simply an updating of the old title. Their lawyer then told him and his wife that they could cancel the contract in terms of clauses inserted for their protection by the Licensee. Because the appellant and his wife liked the house, were first home buyers, very much needed the accommodation, and had spent money on a builders report, they decided to continue and defer settlement until the title w...

9. CAC v Hughes and Hape, CAC v Hughes and Lal [2016] NZREADT 57 [pdf, 336 KB]

   ...of Sentencing [22] The Tribunal must consider four matters when considering imposition of a penalty as set out in Real Estate Agents Authority v Lum-on [2012] NZREADT 47. [23] A penalty must fulfil the following functions. They are: [a] Protecting the public Section 3 of the Real Estate Agents Act provides that this is one of the purposes of the Act. [b] Maintenance of professional standards This was emphasised in Taylor v The General Medical Council and Dentice...

10. Mark Brown (filed 6 June 2017) [pdf, 2.1 MB]

    ...metres high over this estuary, a 110m tower on a 400m hill. The visual impact will be considerable in the immediate area. I believe there is absolutely no doubt that Porteous Hill is well within the coastal environment and therefore deserves the protection that other coastal features such as headlands have been given. 14. I am confused by the BEL landscape architects’ reports saying the effects of the turbine on our landscape will be less than significant and will introduce a “n...