Search Results

1. LCRO 80/2021 A LN and B LN v QG (9 November 2021) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...[100] Self-evidently Ms QG cannot avail herself of any COVID-19 lockdown restrictions before 26 March 2020. By then, a little over four months had elapsed since the retainer had been terminated and Mr LN had requested Ms QG’s final invoice. [101] It appears to be the case from Ms QG’s explanations for the delay, that she was preoccupied with the SSD failure and her personal litigation issues during this four-month period. [102] Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Ms QG had unr...

2. LCRO 111/2021 New Zealand Law Society v AP (10 January 2022) [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...invasive than Mr X’s conduct in the first incident. 19 At [20]. 20 At [53]–[54]. 21 At [53] and [58]. 22 At [59] (citation omitted). The Committee adopted the definition of sexual harassment in s 62 of the Human Rights Act 1990. 22 [101] The victim in Mr X’s first incident, was able to leave and did so. In relation to the 2018 incident involving Mr AP and Ms B, she had to remain in the taxi until arrival at her destination. [102] On one view of the conduct in the sec...

3. [2021] NZREADT 40 – Beath (29 July 2021) [pdf, 389 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2021] NZREADT 40 IN THE MATTER OF Appeals under section 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 READT 025/2020 BETWEEN STEPHEN GEORGE WILLIAM BEATH Appellant AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 409) First Respondent AND MIKE PERO REAL ESTATE LTD Second Respondent READT 033/2020 BETWEEN STEPHEN GEORGE WILLIAM BEATH Appellant AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHO

4. [2021] NZEnvC 077 Minister of Conservation v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...conclude that a 10 metre setback is required for all natural wetlands and the beds of lakes. We conclude a 10 metre setback is justified for these features due to the rarity and susceptibility on a regional and national scale. Setback from rivers [101] In terms of the setback required in C.8.2.1 (2), there is agreement between the parties that there should be at.least a 5 metre setback from the beds of COIF rivers. [102] The Regional Council, Federated Farmers and Horticulture New...

5. [2021] NZEnvC 136 The Canyon Vineyard Ltd v Central Otago District Council [pdf, 507 KB]

   ...condition would require dwellings to be located on the benched area of each of the building platforms with the result that the height of each dwelling, at the highest point of the slope on each of the lots, would sit below the 6 m height limit.22 [101] To illustrate this, Mr Smith assessed the visibility of a building that he assumed could be a double garage, being 6 m x 6 m in size and with a simple gable roof form as required by his recommended condition. [102] His figures dem...

6. LCRO 42/2021 JKL Limited v HC and GD (30 August 2021) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...third party, can reasonably expect a firm disciplinary response. If that breach occurs in the context of a lawyer pursuing other interests at the expense of their client’s interests, then the disciplinary consequences are likely to be severe. [101] Serious allegations such as Mr FB has made about Mr HC, require reliable evidence:20 Despite these exceptions, the rule that a flexible approach is taken to applying the civil standard of proof where there are grave allegations in civil...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 78 Vulcan Steel Ltd v Manufacturing & Construction Workers Union [pdf, 409 KB]

   ...had been asserted. [100] Vulcan Steel arguably had an obligation to properly manage health and safety risks in the workplace, under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSW Act), particularly in a safety-sensitive workplace. [101] If employees could select the method of testing, inconsistencies could arise, because some may select one method of testing, and others may choose another method of testing. [102] It would be absurd if an employee could determine the me...

8. Gilbert v Mulligan - Part 3 Lot DP 3020 and others (Shelly Bay) (2023) 466 Aotea MB 164 (466 AOT 164) [pdf, 487 KB]

   466 Aotea MB 164 I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O AOTEA In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Aotea District A20190007225 WĀHANGA Under Sections 18(1)(i), 237 and 238, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Part 3 Lot Deposited Plan 3020 and Section 2 Survey Office Plan 339948 and Others (Shelly Bay) I WAENGA I A Between MIKE TE WHAREHURU GILBERT, MARTHA HINEONE GLIBERT, KAREN MARAMA PARATA, MABEL URU TANIRAU

9. LCRO 40/2021 PT v UT and RL t/a Law Firm A (28 April 2022) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...D] (11 July 2019) at [4]. 19 [100] But I am not persuaded that Mr PT’s statement of claim, considered as it must necessarily be in context, does not fall within the description of a legal process as contemplated and envisaged by r 2.3. [101] I do not consider that attempts to characterise the statement of claim as being no more than a first attempt to articulate the issues, a “conversation opener”, provide full account of what Mr PT was endeavouring to achieve by electing...

10. People charged and convicted of homicide offences June 2022 [xlsx, 115 KB]

    ...death Convicted 30 66 78 77 70 96 106 70 70 74 65% 77% 81% 72% 80% 77% 82% 70% 69% 70% Other proved 1 2 7 10 4 12 7 6 16 14 2% 2% 7% 9% 5% 10% 5% 6% 16% 13% Not proved 15 17 11 20 12 16 17 23 15 18 33% 20% 11% 19% 14% 13% 13% 23% 15% 17% Other 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% Total 46 86 96 107 87 124 130 100 101 106 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0100: Homicide and related offences not further defined Convicted 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0%...