Search Results

1. Summit v REAA & Lewis [2011] NZREADT 38 [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...approved guide to be provided before an agency agreement for residential property is signed; and s.128 that an agency agreement must disclose rebates, discounts and 6 commissions. As she said, those provisions provide substantial consumer protections; and it is important that a consumer is clearly advised when potentially incurring significant financial liability; and an agency agreement is the foundation upon which transactions involving the sale and purchase of a property res...

2. BORA Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...Bill that do not amount to a search and seizure (those that do will be discussed below) are strictly limited to what is needed for the FMA to carry out its duties. Where the compulsion equates to search and seizure, there are significant procedural protections. • Balancing the ability of the FMA to make a confidentiality order, cl 43 provides for the publication of information, documents or evidence with the FMA’s consent and that consent may not be unreasonably withheld. In addit...

3. [2021] - NZREADT 09 - Complaints Assessment Committee 1905 v Papuni (24 February 2021) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...“seriously incompetent or negligent real estate agency work”. Work of that nature would also involve a marked and serious departure from particular standards; the standards to which s 73(b) is directed are those relating to competence and care in conducting real estate work. [19] We accept Ms Paterson’s submission that the highest standards of honesty are fundamental in the real estate industry, and that consumers and other interested parties, including mortgagees, must be...

4. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hooker [2018] NZLCDT 15 [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...not do so. He referred to the passage in Cordery on Legal Services (9th edition) where it reads: “While it is the duty of a solicitor to warn his client of the legal risks of a proposed transaction or to try and prevent useless litigation or to protect the client from the risk of being involved in litigation, it remains the right of the client, who at all material times remains the dominis litis, to choose ultimately how to proceed.” [20] The question then becomes what level of s...

5. BORA Securities Legislation Bill [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...offence. Conclusion 26. In our view the limit these presumptions, strict liability offences, and reverse onus offences place on section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act is justified in terms of section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. Section 26(2): protection against double jeopardy 27. Section 26(2) of the Bill of Rights Act affirms the double jeopardy protection: the right not to be tried or punished for an offence twice. 28. The Bill proposes some amendments to the Securities Act...

6. Hall v Opepe Farm Trust (2010) 22 Waiariki MB 47 (22 WAR 47) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...considering the refusal by the insurers to honour the trustee liability insurance claim for costs and were still deciding on what further steps to take if any; (f) the trustees noted that the farm advisor contract was not completed; (g) Environmental Protection Authority resource consent applications by Contact Energy Limited concerning Opepe lands had been responded to with detailed submissions from the Trust to protect its position; (h) Opepe land titles had been incorrectly ves...

7. Complaints Assessment Committee 409 v Ganesh [2018] NZREADT 27 [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...Complaints Assessment Committee 409 (“the Committee”). [11] The first charge alleged misconduct under s 73(c)(i) and (iii) of the Act (wilful or reckless contravention of the Act or the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”)). The Committee alleged that he [a] had failed to disclose in writing that Mogans and he and/or his wife might benefit financially from the sale of the property to Mr Singh (by way of repayment of the Mo...

8. [2020] NZEnvC 108 Terra NZ Group Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 406 KB]

   ...3 (i) The earthworks exceeded the area of 2,600 m2 authorised by Condition 1 of the resource consent; and (ii) The culverts for the road exceeded the permitted activity standards, being longer than 30 metres and with erosion and sediment protection works in excess of 5 metres. [8] The relevant rules under the AUP appear to be Rule E3.4.1 (A33) in respect of culvert lengths and Rule E3.6.1.14 (b) in respect of the erosion and sediment protection works. These were the matters...

9. [2020] NZIACDT 18 - UO v Nukulasi [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...were no longer her clients. [16] The Associate Minister’s office wrote to Ms Nukulasi on 10 October 2018 advising that the Minister did not intervene where alternatives could be pursued through Immigration New Zealand or the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. Requests for Ministerial intervention should only be considered once all other options had been exhausted. A request under s 61 could be made to Immigration New Zealand. COMPLAINT [17] On 2 November 2018, the compla...

10. MBL v Shadforth [2016] NZIACDT 31 (16 June 2016) [pdf, 100 KB]

    ...licensed immigration advisers are dishonest, and not held to account by the Immigration Advisers Authority. It gave the complainant’s practice as an example of dishonesty, and suggested persons engaging licensed immigration advisers should take care so they do not engage dishonest advisers, which is a real risk. [4] Accordingly, the breach of confidentiality was in an aggravating context, where Ms Shadforth behaved irresponsibly and unprofessionally. [5] Imposing sanctions in a case o...