Search Results

1. LCRO 175/2020 PM obo MNO Limited v FS and BL (22 April 2021) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...Manager dated 8 February 2021, Mr PM framed his timing argument as follows: I was estopped from completing my lawful right to complete payment/settlement of my lease obligations within a time frame provided by [Ms FS] in [the demand letter]. [101] Couched as a disciplinary issue, I interpret Mr PM’s complaint to be that Mr BL breached r 2.3 by improperly using a legal process (service of the Notice) so as to cause Mr PM unnecessary embarrassment, distress or inconvenience. [102]...

2. LCRO 163/2020 DM v TN and EX (9 April 2021) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...must be satisfactorily explained to the relevant decision maker. [100] There is no suggestion that during this time (the end of 20XX and October 20XX), Mr DM was himself responsible for the delay. Certainly, Mr TN has not made this claim. [101] As well, there is the delay between 1 April 20XX when Mr DM, through Mr TN’s receptionist, gave instructions to proceed with the personal grievance, and at the end of June 20XX when the file was handed over to Mr EX. [102] Mr TN had to...

3. LCRO 190/2020 JG v VK (23 March 2021) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...It would be problematic if parents had unfettered opportunity to restrict the other parent’s ability to travel with children, through the process of filing, without notice to the other party, a brief document, unsupported by other evidence. [101] It is clearly anticipated that the majority of applications for border alerts be accompanied by court order, this to provide comfort for the authorities that a court has determined that there are reasonable grounds to curtail potential trav...

4. LCRO 152/2016 BL v HJ (11 August 2017) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...proceed with the purchase. On the other hand, they may have decided to go ahead regardless. Compensation [100] In the alternative, Mr and Mrs BL claim compensation sufficient to enable them to purchase the vendor’s adjoining residue land. [101] In this regard, s 156(1)(d) provides that a Standards Committee may:66 where it appears to the Standards Committee that any person has suffered loss by reason of any act or omission of a [lawyer] …, order the [lawyer] … to pay to...

5. [2017] NZEmpC 96 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd Interlocutory judgment (No 23) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...been raised at any time by any party to the fact that Ms Park has affirmed affidavits for LSG NZ. [100] For the foregoing reasons, I dismiss Mr Hay’s application for discovery of documents. I reserve costs. Application for strike-out [101] Since the application for discovery has been dismissed, the application for strike-out could only now apply to the application for joinder. [102] Although I received submissions at the hearing as to the possibility of strikin...

6. INZ (Calder) v Horan [2019] NZIACDT 13 (11 March 2019) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...1 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 45(2) & (3). 2 Section 49(3) & (4). 3 Section 50. 4 Section 51(1). 5 Section 53(1). 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 11 of the democratic rights of a New Zealand citizen and unconstitutional in a democracy. A convicted and imprisoned person had more rights than he did. [38] A Minute was issued by the Tribunal on 14 February 20

7. LCRO 195/2017 LH v SR and HP (19 March 2019) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...LH. [99] As has been noted, Ms LH’s retainer was with Ms HP. [100] If Ms LH had prepared the will as she suggests she had done, was she obliged in the face of an apparent lack of follow up from Ms HP, to take steps to chase Ms HP along? [101] Clearly, Ms LH was required to advise Ms HP when the will was ready for signing. [102] There is no indication of her having taken steps to do so. [103] It could also be reasonably expected of Ms LH that she would, once the relationshi...

8. 2019 01 28 March Outstanding Applications [pdf, 361 KB]

   ...Application to the Chief Judge A20120015167 45/93 Mohi Wiremu Hotene CJ 2013/4 - Paratene Mita Hotene - and orders dated 1 September 1998 and 28 January 2000 at 90 WHK 405-407 and 92 WHK 250- 251 - Application to the Chief Judge A20130001014 45/93 Lynette Hatton, Jeanette Fifield CJ2013/3 - Mere Porotene – and succession orders made at 6 ADWG 312 dated 12 March 1990 - Application to the Chief Judge A20130001429 45/93 Rochel Nathan CJ 2013/6 - Richard Himiona K...

9. June 2019 Outstanding Applications [pdf, 342 KB]

   ...Island MB 328 - Application to the Chief Judge A20120014543 45/93 Deputy Registrar CJ 2012/31 - Ema or Emma Stevens or Miller and an order made at 53 South Island MB 326- 328 dated 5 October 1977 - Application to the Chief Judge A20130001014 45/93 Lynette Hatton, Jeanette Fifield CJ2013/3 - Mere Porotene – and succession orders made at 6 ADWG 312 dated 12 March 1990 - Application to the Chief Judge A20130001429 45/93 Rochel Nathan CJ 2013/6 - Richard Himiona

10. LCRO 160/2016 ET v NE (23 May 2019) [pdf, 203 KB]

    ...secure the outcome Mr ET wanted. The latter type of arrangement is known as a contingency fee. There are special rules that apply to contingency fees. There is no evidence that supports the contention that Mr NE acted on a contingency basis. [101] As to the former, the rules did not oblige Mr NE to supply information about the basis on which he would charge when Mr OC engaged him. Complaint cannot be sustained on the basis that no such information is available, when no such info...