Search Results

1. LCRO 88/2022 GX v EJ (2 April 2024) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...respect of this matter. [108] This complaint does not support an adverse finding against Mr EJ. Information not provided to Ms GX as a client/trustee [109] Mr EJ did not act for Ms GX in her personal capacity. He acted for the Trust. [110] Ms GX complains that Mr EJ would not release copies of the Trust files relating to the retirement of Mr PE as a trustee, the appointment of herself as a trustee, and the addition of Mr OM as a beneficiary. She says that Mr EJ would not relea...

2. [2024] NZIACDT 15 – YT v CX (14 May 2024) [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...day to pay RMB 80,000. She gave details of the adviser’s bank account in China. According to the adviser and 19 As the Tribunal has already noted, many of the messages are duplicated. 20 Invoice (25 January 2023); Registrar’s bundle at 110. 16 Mr L, the invoice was given to Mr L who sent it to another person in China who in turn requested payment by the complainant.21 The complainant made the payment directly into the adviser’s account on 5 February 2023. [60] The...

3. [2024] NZEnvC 026 Nelson City Council [pdf, 515 KB]

   ...remainder of the plan. In that event the reader would be left in no doubt that to have a proper understanding of how the NRMP affects what can be done on land or within the CMA, the zone or overlay rules must be read alongside the planning maps. [110] On that basis I am not willing to arrive at a conclusion that the presence of the launching ramp symbols on the planning maps (or absence thereof) can be ignored in understanding the meaning of r CMr.33.1(d). [111] Reading all relev...

4. Williamson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 134 [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...to only occur when the rehabilitation plan is complete, and where vocational independence is “likely”. I also draw your attention to the Supreme Court case of McGrath v ACC[1] where the Supreme Court decision of McGrath v ACC under section 110(3) of the Act 2001 clarified the Act as follows ... “ACC must not require a claimant to participate in a vocational independence assessment unless the claimant is likely to achieve vocational independence, and not before the claimant...

5. [2024] NZLVT 011 - Hamilton-City Council v Shaw (15 April 2024) [pdf, 452 KB]

   ...rate as that used in Mr Alexander’s initial valuation, that being $40/m2. [109] Similarly, for the gully land to the north of the designation, Mr Alexander has been consistent with the rate used in his initial valuation, that being $6.50/m2. [110] The ‘after’ value for Area H is assessed at $170,000 + GST (if any). [111] In conclusion, the amount of compensation payable as assessed by Silverton Alexander in Mr Alexander’s first valuation and updated addendum for the land t...

6. 2025 NZSSAA 01 [pdf, 338 KB]

   ...Review Committee. ACC policy now includes potential funding for goods and services to commemorate a person who has died and allows a funeral grant to be used for a broad range of expenses. 30 Ellis v R, above n 22 at [19] and at [108]–[110] per Glazebrook J, [171]–[174] per Winkelmann CJ, [257]–[259] per Williams J and [279] per O’Regan and Arnold JJ. 31 Ellis v R at [94]–[105] (Glazebrook J) and [257] (Williams J). 32 Takamore v Clarke [2012] NZSC 116; [2013] 2 NZLR 73...

7. LCRO 23/2023 VT v NH (18 March 2025) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...making a finding that [Mr VT] was guilty of unsatisfactory conduct’.35 [109] The Standards Committee formed the view that Mr VT’s conduct was ‘relatively serious’.36 I agree that a breach of r 6.1 is a matter to be treated seriously. [110] However, in doing so, I must then look at the impact that Mr VT’s conduct has had on Ms NH, and also consider the broader question as to whether Mr VT’s conduct has had the effect of diminishing the protective requirements of the Act. [...

8. Gwak and Kim TRI-2020-100-006 [2024] NZWHT AUCKLAND 01 [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...are and must be against Mr Couper as a negligent tortfeasor. That is, the claimants must demonstrate that Mr Couper assumed some personal responsibility to discharge some function or step on behalf of Compass and that he breached that duty. [110] In order for Mr Couper to be personally liable there must be a sufficient relationship of proximity between him and the claimants.14 For the reasons that follow, I do not consider that there is a sufficient relationship of proximity be...

9. LCRO 8/2022 QQ v LW (8 October 2024) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...the exceptions in the sub-rules apply. [108] Mr QQ wrote directly to Mr FM. Notwithstanding Mr QQ’s submissions to the contrary, the breach was considered and deliberate. [109] The major part of the letter addressed the s 174 proceedings. [110] The remainder of Mr QQ’s submissions comprise justification for the statements made by him, and observations that some of his assertions as to the potential outcomes have proven to be correct. [111] None of these submissions can take aw...

10. LCRO 61/2022 YJ v GQ (29 October 2024) [pdf, 218 KB]

    ...that Mr GQ did not provide her with fresh Terms of Engagement when continuing to act for her to make submissions as to costs following the judgment. She differentiates between acting for her at the hearing and continuing to act in this regard. [110] The Committee confirmed that Mr GQ had breached rr 3.4 and 3.5 but exercised its discretion to take no further action. Although Mr GQ has accepted that he has breached rr 3.4 and 3.5, I do not agree that new Terms of Engagement were requi...