Search Results

1. Director of Proceedings v Smith (Application for Final Non-Publication Orders) [2019] NZHRRT 32 [pdf, 695 KB]

   ...opportunity to be heard on that application. Liability admitted and damages claim settled [7] By second amended statement of claim dated 19 September 2017 the Director alleged Mrs Smith breached Right 4(1) of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers Rights (the Code) which provides: Every consumer has the right to have services provided with reasonable care and skill. [8] Mrs Smith admits to having breached this Right, as does the LMC in separate but related proceedings b...

2. Domb v REAA Registrar [2014] NZREADT 5 [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...applicant and for other real estate agents. [5] It is put by Mr Clancy that this case concerns the Registrar’s ability to make properly informed decisions about the fitness and propriety of an applicant for a licence, and that this is no less than consumers and industry members would reasonably expect. [6] Mr Clancy submits that the Registrar has not sought consent to disclosure of information beyond the scope of that which is permitted under the statutory scheme; that the stat...

3. Barfoot & Thompson v CAC 20003 [2014] NZREADT 48 [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...example, where a separate licensee is not required to act as an intermediary negotiator between the client and the licensee purchaser. However, it is submitted for the Authority that the Committee was correct to find that, in cases involving most consumer clients, steps of that kind will be required in the interests of fairness to protect the client and to avoid the perception of conflict of interest. Mr Hodge adds that Barfoot & Thompson’s policy does not provide for such measure...

4. [2024] NZIACDT 08 - MT v Murthy (21 February 2024) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...magnitude and reach of such disregard or inattention is aggravated and broadened by her past instances of misconduct. [11] The Tribunal’s attention is drawn to s 3 of the Act, setting out the purpose of the Act, namely protecting the interests of consumers. This is a key purpose of sanctions. [12] It is submitted that the wrongdoing could be described as being towards the higher end of the moderate level. Ms Murthy’s conduct is disquieting. She has repeatedly and consistent...

5. OIA-99969.pdf [pdf, 23 MB]

   ...advancements in technology. With these advancements comes an increasing ability to collect, use and disclose personal information. The Act has – broadly speaking – been able to effectively respond. The increased digitisation of government and consumer centric services (including as a result of COVID-19) means the privacy protection framework will need to be reflective of how we all work in the “new normal”. It is in this complex and dynamic environment that the proposed review...

6. Supplementary Government Response to Law Commissions report [pdf, 479 KB]

   ...information sharing when it introduced the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill 91 Implemented through the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 10, 45.3 Implemented in Harmful Communications [CAB Min (13) 10/5] 116 Considered by Cabinet in context of the Consumer Law Reform Bill [EGI Min (12) 16/5] 46 To be considered by Cabinet as part of policy matters arising from the review of NZSIS [CAB Min (13) 14.1] 83, 84 and 92.2 Referred to the Legislation Advisory Committee for its Guidelines, as...

7. Khan v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 6 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...Tribunal made three material findings in this complaint: [25.1] Ms Khetarpal filed the EOI believing it qualified, but she was wrong and her failure to identify the true position was due to lack of care and professionalism under the 2010 Code; [25.2] Consequentially, and without adding to the gravity of that finding, it followed she failed to follow the provisions in the 2010 Code relating to unfounded applications. [25.3] Ms Khetarpal provided two inconsistent explanations to the Regi...

8. Emery v REAA CAC 20002 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 33 [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...against a 10 June 2013 decision of Complaints Assessment Committee 20002 finding he had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct in respect of a complaint made by Ms Abigail Cook (“the complainant”) and outlined below. By its 17 September 2013 decision on consequential penalty, the Committee censured the licensee, fined him $1,000, and ordered that he refund the complainant $1,000 as a share of the marketing fees she had paid to Harcourts Eden in Auckland. [2] Both the complainant and t...

9. J v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 7 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...made three material findings in the Khan complaint: [25.1] Ms Khetarpal filed the EOI believing it qualified, but she was wrong and her failure to identify the true position was due to lack of care and professionalism under the 2010 Code; [25.2] Consequentially, and without adding to the gravity of that finding, it followed she failed to follow the provisions in the 2010 Code relating to unfounded applications. [25.3] Ms Khetarpal provided two inconsistent explanations to the Registrar...

10. Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC 403) v Licensee B [2017] NZREADT 1 [pdf, 267 KB]

    ...disgraceful. [14] When determining whether conduct would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful, the Tribunal takes into consideration the standards that an agent of good standing should aspire to, in order to promote and protect the interest of consumers in respect of transactions relating to real estate, and of promoting public confidence in the performance of real estate agency work. The standard of proof required before the Tribunal can find a charge under s 73(a) proved is th...