Search Results

1. TD Ltd v SC Ltd [2023] NZDT 624 (21 November 2023) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...vehicle charge materials, concrete and waste for $120+GST. There is also a charge for $440+GST which is for ‘labour one carpenter load out rubbish, concrete in last fence posts, install fence posts. Because that latter cost is not itemised, I allow $110+GST for concrete rubbish removal. The total external charges TD Ltd is liable to pay is therefore $411.36. 38. UV for SC Ltd says that the $1632.00 claimed is SC Ltd’s own costs of breaking up and removing concrete from the site,...

2. LCRO 27/2024 VF v SR and BR (23 May 2025) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...view. It mattered to his clients and their instructions were clear – the funds were to be retained by him. [54] Looked at objectively, Mr VF made a payment of client funds which had not been authorised by them. This is a potential breach of s 110(1)(b) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 which provides: A practitioner who, in the course of his or her practice, receives money for, or on behalf of, any person— … (b) must hold the money, or ensure that the money is held...

3. Final Env-Reg-Report-2022-23 [pdf, 479 KB]

   ...Over 2022/23, four matters were referred to the Court directly pursuant to sections 87G of the RMA: • MFC Development Limited Partnership – application for resource consent for the construction of a building and associated earthworks at 110 Jervois Quay, Wellington Central. • Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency and others – applications for resource consents and notices of requirement for the Otaki to North Levin Project • Kiwi Rail Holdings Limited - applications for resou...

4. LCRO 196/2022 LQ and BQ v HN (2 December 2024) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...Society. The paragraph reads: You are not permitted to deduct fees from a client’s trust money unless you have provided that client with an account for the services carried out (Regulation 9(1)) and the client has authorised the deduction (Section 110). [78] I do not consider that authorisation can be provided by ‘default’, and more so in this instance, where there can be doubt that the client has accessed the firm’s Terms and Conditions. [79] However, Mr HN was not a directo...

5. [2023] NZREADT 33 - CAC 2102 v LL (4 December 2023) [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...satisfied that his conduct was disgraceful and that he is guilty of misconduct under s 73(a) of the Act. PENALTY JURISDICTION AND PRINCIPLES [24] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to impose penalty orders if misconduct is proven is set out in the Act: 110 Determination of charges and orders that may be made if charge proved (1) If the Disciplinary Tribunal, after hearing any charge against a licensee, is satisfied that it has been proved on the balance of probabilities that the licen...

6. 2025 NZPSPLA 057.pdf [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...(SC) 11 Singh v Director of Proceedings [2014] NZHC 2848 12 A v Professional Conduct Committee HC Auckland CIV 2008-404-2927, 5 September 2008 13 Robert Gray NZPSPLA 20 June 2022, Simon Williams, [2023] NZPSPLA 017, Charles Pesaleli-Smith NZSPLA 110 29 November 2024 14 P24 Court of Appeal Judgment 15 P22 Court of Appeal Judgment 7 That is particularly so when the male holds other positions of authority such as being a security provider and sole director of a reputable security...

7. [2019] NZEnvC 203 Director General of Conservation v New Zealand Transport Agency [pdf, 7.8 MB]

   ................................................................................................... 109 Mr and Mrs Pascoe ................................................. : ................................ 109 Ecology................................................................................................ 110 Conditions .............................................................................................. 110 Outcome ............................................................

8. People charged and convicted of drug offences December 2020 [xlsx, 274 KB]

   ...Auckland Pukekohe Total 103 90 83 58 59 65 76 71 63 50 South Auckland Justice service area total Convicted 565 588 557 485 417 495 485 446 453 443 South Auckland Justice service area total Other proved 56 68 43 36 48 32 37 34 48 33 South Auckland Justice service area total Not proved 144 122 148 110 100 113 102 105 100 107 South Auckland Justice service area total Other 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 3 2 South Auckland Justice service area total Total 765 780 748 632 565 641 625 586 604 585 Waikato Hami...

9. Edwards – Whakatōhea (2018) 183 Waiariki MB 169-194 (183 WAR 169) [pdf, 534 KB]

   ...unsurprising in terms of cancellation given the Court has no specific statutory power to cancel a s 30 36 Edwards v Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board (1998) 1 Waiariki Appellate MB 102 (1 AP 102) at 110. 183 Waiariki MB 186 order. Prior to the amendment to s 30, first made in 2001, the Court had no ability to amend an existing s 30 order, in terms of replacing representatives or otherwise, and a new s 30 order would have been...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 77 Jones v Downer NZ Ltd [pdf, 482 KB]

    ...the employment), is or are or was (during employment that has since been terminated) affected to the employee’s disadvantage by some unjustifiable action by the employer; [96] In relation to the email of 8 April 2016 the Authority said: [110] I find that this disadvantage was unjustified as no fair and reasonable employer could have failed to have rearranged the roster meeting in all the circumstances. Mr Jones’ evidence is that he was upset by this decision, and it led to...