Search Results

1. 2013 Justice Sector annual report [pdf, 12 MB]

   Public trust in our institutions and the law is essential to making society work effectively. We want a justice system that delivers the core results of reduced crime and improved safety, and that better meets modern public expectations of service. We also want to be transparent about what we are doing and what's being achieved. That's why this document has been created. This report is not required by any statute, but as a sector we are accountable to New Zealanders

2. Milligan v Robert Brown Developments Ltd [pdf, 133 KB]

   CLAIM NO: 00756 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER OF an adjudication BETWEEN KAYE BARBARA MILLIGAN Claimant AND ROBERT BROWN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (Now struck out) First respondent (Intituling continued next page) Hearing: 19 August 2004 Appearances: Garry Thompson, counsel for the Claimant Stewart Ross in person for the Second Respondent Peter Smith and John Mulholland for the Third Re

3. Body Corporate 199883 & Ors (Ridgeview Apartments) v Clarke [2010] NZWHT Auckland 22 [pdf, 216 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2007-100-000032 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 22 BETWEEN BODY CORPORATE 199883 & OTHERS (RIDGEVIEW APARTMENTS) Claimants AND PETER LAURENCE CLARKE (Being the only remaining respondent) Fourth Respondent Hearing: 17 and 21 June 2010 Appearances: Mr C Leishman for the Claimants Fourth Respondent, Mr Peter Clarke, in person Decision: 25 August 2010 FINAL DETERMINATION Adjudicator: P J Andrew Page | 2 CONTE

4. Tomov v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 34 [pdf, 221 KB]

   1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2011-100-000018 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 34 BETWEEN SLAVE TOMOV, LILJANA TOMOVA AND DAVENPORTS WEST TRUSTEE COMPANY (NO 1) LIMITED Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND MODERN HOMES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Second Respondent AND ANDREW THOMAS Third Respondent AND PBS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND GEORGE MAREVICH Fifth Respondent AND ROOF IMPROVEMENTS LIMITED (Removed) Sixth Re

5. Clarken v Carling [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...that was patent and detectable at the time the Council’s inspections were carried out, and by reason of the said breach, the Claimants have suffered loss and damage to their property for which the Third respondent, the Council, is liable. [110] Accordingly, I find the Third respondent, the Council, liable to the Claimants for damages in the sum of $6,210.00 being the amount CLAIM NO.00804 - CLARKEN.DETERMINATION.doc 31 allowed for remedial work to the handrail by Mr Probett...

6. [2017] NZEnvC 209 Auckland Council v London Pacific Family Trust [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   BEFORETHEEN~RONMENTCOURT IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC 209 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an application for declarations under s 311 of the Act AUCKLAND COUNCIL (ENV-2017 -AKL-0001 05) Appellant JANICE BUDDEN, MARK GITTOS AND MICHAEL ROWE AS TRUSTEES OF THE LONDON PACIFIC FAMILY TRUST Respondent Court: Principal Environment Judge LJ Newhook Environment Judge JJM Hassan Environment Commissioner RM Dunlop Environment Commissioner

7. LCRO 43/2016 XZ v QW [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...determine precisely what occurred at the settlement conference. [109] The only other evidence of what transpired at the conference, is that provided by Ms GL who advised that she had attended the conference and had remained with Ms XZ throughout. [110] Ms GL’s evidence was that she had discussed the options proposed with Ms XZ, and reinforced to her, that it was Ms XZ’s decision, and hers alone, as to whether she agreed to settle the dispute or elected to proceed the matter to a hea...

8. LCRO 127/2017 EZ v UO [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...had advised counsel for the plaintiff that he was having difficulty obtaining Mrs EZ’s files from her former lawyers. He suggested to Mrs EZ that it may speed matters up if she was to make arrangements herself to uplift the files. 18 [110] In February 2014, Mr UO advised Mrs EZ that he had been unable to secure the information sought from her former lawyers, and that he was still awaiting response from her in respect to the request he had made for her to provide further infor...

9. LCRO 95/2013 GI v JM (28 June 2017) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...December 2011: $10,500 plus GST and disbursements (the third invoice).23 [108] The invoices totalled $24,482.50 plus GST and disbursements. [109] Recorded time was 67 hours. Billed time (before the discount was applied) was 63.9 hours. [110] The first invoice was paid in full by Mr GI, without complaint. [111] Mr GI paid $2,793.28 towards the second invoice. [112] The third invoice remains unpaid. Including the amount still owing on the second invoice, the balance owing by M...

10. LCRO 182/2014 DL v SJ, GS and PQ [pdf, 292 KB]

    ...goes much further. In his email, he offers the strategic advice that the beneficiaries ought nevertheless to bring the constructive trust claim in order to secure leverage to negotiate a settlement with the beneficiaries of Mr Y’s estate. [110] There is no basis to argue that this was anything other than advice that was completely against the interests of his client, Mr Y’s estate. [111] Mr DL ought not to have given any advice about the potential rights and claims of the ben...