Search Results

1. ENV-2016-AKL-000xxx Sargisson & Barnes v Auckland Council [pdf, 3 MB]

   ...requirements of clause 5 of Schedule 17; ii. the alternative dispute resolution provision in clause 8AA of Schedule 18; iii. the hearing process set out in clauses 8B and 8C of Schedule 19; and iv. decisions on submissions set out in clause 10 of Schedule 110. Importantly, the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 has made a substantial change to the extent to which the Panel can make recommendations to the Council. Section 144(5) provides: However, the Hearings P...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 92 H v A Ltd [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...Appeal for leave to appeal on grounds which included the refusal to order permanent suppression of his name. That application 57 Air Nelson (CA), above n 42. 58 C v Air Nelson Ltd [2010] NZSC 110 [Air Nelson (SC)]. 59 White v Auckland District Health Board [2007] NZCA 227, [2007] ERNZ 441 (citations omitted). for leave was dismissed. In a judgment delivered by William Young P, the Court of Appeal held: [14] In declinin...

3. Butler v NF Fraser Co Limited - Mangawhaiti 3B1 and Takahiwai 3 A2 [2013] Chief Judge's MB 59 (2013 CJ 59) [pdf, 1.9 MB]

   2013 Chief Judge's lVIB 59 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT Hearing: Judgment: Solicitors: A20050007087 CJ200S/47 UNDER Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Mangawhati 3Bl & Takahiwai 3 A2 BETWEEN LEIGH BUTLER Applicant AND N F FRASER & CO LIMITED Affected Party 127 Whangarei MB 27 dated 9 September 2008 129 Whangarei MB 205-212 at 20 November 2008 136 Whangarei MB 88-200 dated 19 February 2009 137 Whangare

4. LCRO 121/2017 PT v BD (25 July 2018) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...satisfied that the terms of engagement and information for client attachments form part of contract of retainer described in the letter of engagement Mr BD provided to MOH Ltd on 3 July 2015, and which was signed by Mr PT on 10 July 2015. 20 [110] The 3 July 2015 letter of engagement refers to those attachments, and they were received by MOH Ltd three weeks later, on 23 July 2015, under cover of a separate letter of attachment in the employment matter. [111] MOH Ltd had not as...

5. LCRO 48/2019 VW v EX and TY (3 May 2021) [pdf, 324 KB]

   ...informed Mr TY, and Ms EX that having met the previous evening, the appellants would “still carry on” with the appeal, and “pay for all related cost[s]”.43 By that stage Ms EX and Mr TY had issued invoices for fees of $16,157.50 plus GST.44 [110] Mr TY asked the other members of the group on 6 December 2015 whether they intended staying with the appeal, and whether one of them would pay her reinstatement levy on account. [111] On 15 December 2015 Ms EX asked the group whet...

6. LCRO 161/2020 SE v GR (31 March 2021) [pdf, 305 KB]

   ...Conveyancing Law and Practice Commentary (online looseleaf ed, CCH IntelliConnect) at [3-510]. 18 [Law Firm 2] ought to have done, he would have advised Ms SE that the deposit be held by the vendor’s lawyer as stakeholder until settlement. [110] However, he explains Ms SE’s “only option” as “unconditional purchaser” was, as Mr BC later did in February 2015, to lodge a caveat, albeit that would not prevent a mortgagee sale. [111] In Mr GR’s submission, because...

7. Granting aid for Waitangi Tribunal matters policy [pdf, 851 KB]

   Granting aid for Waitangi Tribunal matters Operational policy June 2016 iii Contents Status of this Operational Policy and Effective Date 1 Background 1 Introduction 1 History 1 The Waitangi Tribunal and Legal Aid 1 Defined Terms 2 Relevant Statutory and Policy Framework 2 Legal Services Act 2011 2 Other important provisions 3 Relevant Policy 3 Services for Tribunal matters funded by Legal Aid Services 4 Legal Aid Services for Proceedings before Wa

8. National Standards Committee v Shand [2019] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 3.2 MB]

   ...all issues under Charge One fail with the exception of Issue 1 which we have found to be unsatisfactory conduct but which does not invite a disciplinary response. [109] We have found Charge Two proved to the level of unsatisfactory conduct. [110] We invite the applicant to make submissions regarding penalty within 10 working days of receiving this decision. The respondent is to respond within seven working days thereafter. [111] We will consider penalty on the papers, unless eith...

9. LCRO 275/2016 KN v YL (4 March 2019) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...understanding of the role that Ms YL played in the firm. [108] Considered in isolation, I am not persuaded that the SLA establishes that Ms YL was a principal of Mr KN’s firm. [109] I turn now to the management charts of 2012 and 2013. 20 [110] The charts record, in hierarchical form, the roles of the staff working in or assisting the [city] branch of OAR. [111] Mr HC, consistent with the description of his role as described in correspondence to Ms YL’s counsel, heads th...

10. LCRO 116/2017 GC v KM (31 May 2018) [pdf, 420 KB]

    ...on this issue, although Mr GC ought to have taken the initiative and informed Ms KM that the EPA’s were ready for her signature, again by a fine margin, I do not consider that his failure to do so warrants an adverse finding against him. [110] In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into account the likelihood Ms KM would have known from her 20 September telephone conversation with Mr GC that preparation of the EPA’s was under way. Also, the fact that the EPA’s were ready...