Search Results

1. LCRO 178/2021 AA v EL (26 November 2021) [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...potential to cause Mr AA offence. The second issue to address, is that if it was the case that the comments were potentially offensive, did Mr EL have a responsibility to ensure that the comments were not included as part of his memorandum? [110] There are two distinct comments. [111] Firstly, Mr AA is described as a [Asian] businessman. [112] Secondly, Mr AA’s rationale for his determination to have his day in court is explained by reference to comment that it has become a mat...

2. [2021] NZACC 52 - Thompson v ACC (17 March 2021) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...of a garage. He is then on his knees for several minutes cleaning the car exhaust. He is seen swivelling on his knees and sitting on his haunches for an excess of a minute. He is also seen stooping over the open boot for several minutes. [110] On 22 August 2017, at approximately 7.00 am, the appellant is seen with a hot water jug “de-icing” a car. He is wearing shoes and long trousers. The de-icing activity continues for a considerable period of time with the appellant pou...

3. Thompson v Van Wijk [2021] NZHRRT 39 [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award amounts of up to $200,000. Further, when the plaintiff filed the claim she sought $100,000 in damages. That figure was nominated by the plaintiff as appropriate for the damages she had suffered. 17 [110] In our view also $100,000 is the appropriate response to adequately compensate the plaintiff for the impact of the sexual harassment she sustained over a period of four weeks in circumstances where Mr Van Wijk used his position of trust and p...

4. LCRO 170/2019 ZY v LN QC (23 April 2021) [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...response she had received from counsel for Mr JA. Mr LN responded promptly to that correspondence to advise Ms TW that “… The next step I think is a memorandum to the Court of Appeal on the costs issue. Do you want me to draft that?” [110] Mr LN was advised the following day, that Ms TW would wish for him to draft the memorandum. [111] Mr LN met with Ms TW and Ms ZY on 1 March 2018. [112] There is a degree of disagreement between Ms ZY and Mr LN in their recollections as...

5. LCRO 76/2020 FV v GT (23 July 2021) [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...the law treating the lawyer-client relationship as one of influence…. [109] I acknowledge that Mr GT had not filed any documents in the liquidation proceedings, recording himself and his law firm as the solicitor/s on the record for [ABC]. [110] In that event, at least on [redacted] 2018 when IRD had indicated it would not agree to a further adjournment of the liquidation proceedings, Mr GT’s obligations as an officer of the court would have compelled an attendance by him, or by...

6. ORC & Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd - EIC - Cain Duncan - 17 September 2021 [pdf, 3.1 MB]

   ...application systems and their management meet the 25 required standards to minimise any adverse environmental impacts. It also gives an assurance to landowners that they are investing in appropriate irrigation technology and infrastructure. 110 An exception to needing to manage animal effluent via a restricted discretionary activity is where small areas of concrete are used periodically for activities such as deer velveting operations. Water use and the subsequent discharge is...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 171 Alkazaz v Deloitte (No. 3) Ltd [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...inaccurate. He says that is incorrect and Mr Enderby did not have sufficient knowledge of the work he performed while at DeloitteAsparona to enable him to make such a statement. He considers it breaches cl 5 of the Record of Settlement. [110] The statement by Mr Enderby to Mr Wong and by Mr Wong in turn to Halcyon Knights is, on any interpretation, derogatory. [111] Mr Enderby says it is true, but cl 5 does not require that the comment be false, just that it be derogatory.31...

8. [2023] NZEnvC 076 Noakes & Fruhling Trust v Waikato District Council [pdf, 609 KB]

   Noakes & Fruhling Trust v Waikato District Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2023] NZEnvC 076 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN A NOAKES FRUHLING TRUST (ENV-2022-AKL-000078) Appellants AND WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Chief Environment Court Judge D A Kirkpatrick Hearing: On the papers Last case even

9. LCRO 8/2020 PA v ZN (21 December 2022) [pdf, 306 KB]

   ...persists across regulated services and non-regulated services activities. [109] That being said, the next question is, does the acknowledged inaccuracy in Mr PA’s 2016 affidavit amount to a breach by him of his obligation under r 2 of the Rules? [110] It is trite to observe that the obligation to be accurate and scrupulously truthful exists for every witness who gives evidence whether by affidavit or in person, regardless of their professional or other status. [111] In my view,...

10. LCRO 138/2021 & 139/2021 TZ v FK and FK v TZ (26 July 2022) [pdf, 272 KB]

    ...not to have been inquired into in the first place. [109] It can reasonably be assumed that if a decision-maker does not limit a lawyer’s questions, then the decision-maker did not regard those questions as warranting judicial intervention. [110] It is difficult to imagine why a Standards Committee, in those circumstances, would consider that some professional conduct issue in relation to the questions nevertheless arose. [111] It is also reasonable to suggest that not every ju...