Search Results

1. Complaints Assessment Committee 404 v Kumandan, Kumandan v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 404) [2018] NZREADT 51 [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...transactions which they were being requested to finance. [31] The approach which the Committee took was that the Acts and omissions of the defendant were such that to rules which were part of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (the Rules) had not been complied with, with those particular rules being 6.2 and/or 6.4. The allegation is that by not complying with those rules the defendant put themselves in breach of s 73(c) of the Act then...

2. Napier v Registrar of the Real Estate Agents Authority [2019] NZREADT 7 (25 Feb 2019) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...Court findings gave rise to serious concerns as to Mr Napier’s fitness to practise, and that conduct of such a nature would be in breach of fundamental obligations under the Act and the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012. The Tribunal was also concerned that notwithstanding the High Court findings, Mr Napier had continued to steadfastly deny any wrongdoing, both to the Registrar and in his formal statement to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was,...

3. AT v ZH & Ors LCRO 127/2013 (26 March 2014) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...undertaken in this matter, we discussed the payment of my fees for all the work done to date in this matter. We agreed that we would sent [sic] you our account for the work done to investigate this matter and provide options for further action to protect your position with [Company A]. We would also send a copy of the account to Mr M TE to pass on to Mr AT. Mr AT agreed to arrange payment of this account. Therefore we attach a copy of the account for your information. [27] Alt...

4. RH v LV LCRO 189 / 2011 (25 September 2012) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...[the Practitioner] chose to ignore the rule and take instructions directly from a client. Despite not being entitled to act, [the Practitioner] embarked on an ill-conceived adventure of the kind against which the intervention rule is designed to protect. [16] The Committee considered that the failure reached the section 351 threshold, and there followed a finding that the Practitioner was guilty of unsatisfactory conduct. Review application [17] The two main grounds for the Practiti...

5. Zhang v Samsung Electronics New Zealand Ltd (Strike Out Application) [2023] NZHRRT 42 [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...amounted to indirect discrimination as providers of goods must take the possibility of “traits” provided by the HRA into consideration. We understand by his use of the word “traits” that Mr Zhang is referring to the status groups who are protected by the prohibited grounds of discrimination set out in s 21 of the HRA. [11] Samsung did not deny that the dual sim functionality on Mr Zhang’s phone may not have worked properly. However, it disputed that the difficulties Mr Z...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Kejriwal [2022] NZLCDT 24 (20 July 2022 [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...another firm’s letterhead, was issued on 22 December 2017 but involved a more significant transaction. [11] This transaction involved a dealing with estate distribution funds in which the client was due, by means of a settlement under the Family Protection Act, a distribution from a parent’s estate of $129,025.90. Instead of paying the funds into the trust account of the law firm whose letterhead had been forged, they were redirected into the bank account number provided at t...

7. [2024] NZEmpC 109 LDJ v EZC [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...under s 149 of the Act. [4] The applicant’s position is that when they signed the settlement agreement, they did not have the requisite mental capacity to do so. It is submitted that the settlement agreement needed to comply with s 108B of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PPPR Act) because it needed to be approved by a court for it to be valid, in light of the applicant’s incapacity. The respondent’s position is that the applicant did not lack menta...

8. MfE - EiC - K S Kohere - Planning Policy (5 Feb 2021) [PDF, 254 KB]

   ...dhilum.nightingale@mfe.govt.nz peter.bevan@mfe.govt.nz mailto:rosemary.dixon@crownlaw.govt.nz mailto:dhilum.nightingale@mfe.govt.nz mailto:peter.bevan@mfe.govt.nz 1 6120787_1 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1. In 2018 the Government announced its programme to restore and protect New Zealand’s freshwater which includes an objective to reverse past damage and bring New Zealand’s freshwater resources, waterways and ecosystems to a healthy state within a generation. 2. The National Po...

9. Mason v REAA [2013] NZREADT 7 [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...concerning the application must be considered, not just the previous misconduct. The onus is on the candidate to show that he or she is a fit and proper person.” [13] The decision of Interim Advance Corporation Pt Ltd v Commissioner for Consumer Protection [2008] WASAT 81 provides useful guidance on the “fit and proper person” test in the context of a refusal to grant a credit provider’s licence. The State Administrative Tribunal considered a review of a decision not to grant...

10. [2020] NZREADT 21 - Hanford (12 May 2020) [pdf, 181 KB]

    ...the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (“the Act”). In the alternative, it charged Mr Hanford with misconduct under s 73(c)(iii) of the Act, alleging a wilful or reckless breach of r 6.3 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”). [2] On 14 February 2020, the parties advised the Tribunal that Mr Hanford would plead guilty to the alternative charge under s 73(c)(iii) of the Act, and that the Committee would withdraw the charge und...