Search Results

1. Ruha - Succession to Takerei Ruha [2025] Chief Judge's MB 30 (2025 CJ 30) [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...made at 256 Rotorua MB 292-295 on 2 February 2001 (Sections 214(1) and 220(1) of the Act); i) Succession order for Rangitautaua Henare or Rangitautaua Henare Meihana or Rangitautaua Meihana or Rangitautaua Matekino, made at 257 Rotorua MB 100-101 on 1 March 2001 (Section 118 of the Act); j) Succession order for Bella Tawera or Bella Lorraine Tawera or Bella Lauraine Tawera, made at 257 Rotorua MB 154-155 on 2 March 2001 (Section 118 of the Act); k) Succession order for...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 213 Cronin-Lampe v Minister of Education Interlocutory (No 5) [pdf, 336 KB]

   KATHLEEN CRONIN-LAMPE v MINISTER OF EDUCATION [2024] NZEmpC 213 [6 November 2024] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2024] NZEmpC 213 ARC 55/2013 ARC 79/2013 ARC 25/2014 ARC 48/2014 IN THE MATTER OF challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for stay of execution BETWEEN KATHLEEN CRONIN-LAMPE First Plaintiff

3. LCRO 158/2023 QMY v WAN (30 June 2025) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...administrative error. The sole principal of a firm cannot be unaware of the invoices it issues. If he is unaware of them, he cannot be exercising any judgment in setting the fees to be charged. This was already an issue with the second invoice. [101] The applicant’s reported previous unsatisfactory conduct findings for reportedly similar conduct could constitute an aggravating factor. Consequently, I requested details from the applicant of his disciplinary history, as distinct from...

4. LCRO 138/2023 FK v LM (12 June 2025) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...to honour them. He stated that, at the date he filed his complaint, the valuations had still not been provided and were then 348 days overdue the 21-day timeframe given to the Court. He had also been denied access to collect the pianos. [101] The respondent’s response was that she did not provide an undertaking to the Court but rather that the Judge directed her client to provide valuations for the pianos, which the wife failed to do. Her position was that compliance with the...

5. LCRO 38/2024 & 39/2024 SM v CV and CV v SM (13 August 2025) [pdf, 275 KB]

   ...been necessary to establish that there were possible grounds to challenge the cancellation. [100] Ms SM advises42 that there were ‘many robust discussions’ with Mr CV in which she felt that she was ‘battling with her own solicitor’. [101] Ms SM’s complaint is primarily that Mr CV telegraphed his view to Mr JW that there was little to be done when he requested that the Agreement be reinstated in his letter of 22 March 2022 and subsequently, by providing his trust account deta...

6. Wilton TRI-2021-100-002 Procedural Order 27 [pdf, 311 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2021-100-002 BETWEEN HELEN BERNADETTE O’SULLIVAN, FIONA CHERIE WHITE & ANDREW RODGER WILTON as trustees of the WILTON FAMILY TRUST Claimants AND DEANE FLUIT BUILDER LTD First Respondent AND TAB DESIGN LTD (Removed) Second Respondent AND TILING SOLUTIONS WANAKA LTD Third Respondent AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Fourth Respondent AND HEMPEL (WATTYL) NEW ZEALAND LTD formally called VALSPAR PAINT

7. [2025] NZEmpC 215 Scott v Damar Industries Limited [pdf, 248 KB]

   SCOTT v DAMAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2025] NZEmpC 215 [29 September 2025] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2025] NZEmpC 215 EMPC 265/2025 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for interim non-publication BETWEEN FELICITY SCOTT Plaintiff AND DAMAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED Defendant

8. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Hay [2018] NZLCDT 1 [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...that any legal advice that she needed was provided by him and his status as a lawyer, we accept that Ms C was not Mr Hay’s client. Issue 2(b) – Other Professional Obligations [89] We accept the submission by the Standards Committee that Rule 5.1013 imposes obligations on Mr Hay in relation to this transaction even for a non-client. 13 A lawyer must not draft or assist in drafting a provision of a will or other instrument under which th...

9. National Standards Committee v Young [2017] NZLCDT 41 [pdf, 315 KB]

   ...to the said lies. D also repeated the same false facts many times to make it real, as Mal Zedong says “if you tell a lie a thousand times, it will be truth”. He repeatedly misled the Court that the contract was entered “vis a vis”.” [101] Mr Young’s literal and dogmatic interpretation of the phrase “vis a vis” featured strongly in his allegations against Mr D, and indeed at the Tribunal hearing. Mr Young, in cross-examining Mr D asked him what he had meant when he ha...

10. LCRO 81/2025 CB v AC (26 September 2025) [pdf, 239 KB]

    ...review was unexplained. At the review hearing, the applicant stated only that the partner had not complained about her conduct or sought compensation from her. She nevertheless had no argument with the Committee’s award of compensation to him. [101] The Committee’s power to order compensation to be paid is not restricted to loss suffered by a complainant. Section 156(1)(d) of the Act relevantly provides that such an order may be made “where it appears to the Standards Committee...