Search Results

1. [2013] NZEmpC 134 Hallwright v Forsyth Barr ltd [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...are reasonably incidental to the negotiations; Field v Commissioner for Railways for New South Wales (1955) 99 CLR 285, 292. If they are independent of the negotiations, they are admissible in evidence. [10] While a number of affidavits were filed setting out the background to the correspondence, and what was said to be the plaintiff’s intention when he wrote the letter of 26 July, the documents speak for themselves. Part 2 of Exhibit A (which contains a without prejudice offe...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 109 Hixon (Labour Inspector) & Collins v Campbell Ors interlocutory [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...INSPECTOR) First Plaintiff AND MARCIA JOY COLLINS Second Plaintiff AND JUSTIN CAMPBELL First Defendant AND DEAN EGGERS Second Defendant AND PAULA CAMPBELL Third Defendant Hearing: On papers filed on 25 June 2014 Court: Appearances: Chief Judge GL Colgan Judge Christina Inglis M Urlich and S Carr, counsel for plaintiffs No appearance for defendants MSR Palmer QC, counsel assisting the Court Judgment:...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 226 Lund South Ltd v Low [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...invoice rendered to Mr Low. [7] On a discounted basis it is asserted for Mr Low that reasonable legal costs are $39,740 plus disbursements of $797.80. 5 Two-thirds is accordingly $26,493, plus disbursements. 6 [8] The submissions which were filed for LSL attached copies of the correspondence between counsel. Counsel for Mr Low contended that evidence for the purposes of the costs application had not been properly adduced; and that in any event the correspondence between cou...

4. Rogers v Stirling - Taungaure No.2 (2011) 39 Waiariki MB 297 (39 WAR 297) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...favour of Mrs Rogers. 1 I indicated in that judgment, that as costs normally follow the event these would be awarded in favour of Te Keepa Stirling. I noted that circumstances may exist that warrant taking a different approach. The parties have filed submissions on the point. [2] Mr Frank Hogan, counsel for Mr Te Keepa Stirling has filed an application seeking costs of $12,158.63. Mr Hogan submitted that given the history of the case and the clear agreements that were concluded,...

5. Auckland Standards Committee v Van der Zanden [2014] NZLCDT 54 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...throughout the disciplinary process and was responsible enough to engage senior counsel to represent him. 3. Mitigating Features? [8] We consider there are a number of mitigating features. Following our liability decision Mr van der Zanden filed an extremely contrite affidavit in which he apologised to the Court of Appeal and to the colleague about whom he had provided false information. [9] Further he has taken steps to obtain a mentor and has indicated he is willing to have...

6. BY v XW LCRO 162 / 2010 (15 April 2011) [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...XW, forwarded copies of the correspondence and invited him to comment should he feel it was appropriate to do so. Mr XW did not, in the event, write back in relation to the matter. No contact was made with Mr XV. [15] The information on the file suggests that the Standards Committee did not perceive the essential complaint that had been made. At the same time it is fair to say that the volume of information forwarded by Ms BY may have somewhat masked her grievance. [16] What...

7. CE v XQ LCRO 182 / 2010 (27 May 2011) [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...conduct breached the provisions of Rule 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Client Care Rules). The LCRO found that this breach had occurred by reason of the fact that the Respondent had delayed filing a Notice of Appeal against the Family Court decision, or, conversely, had failed to properly terminate his retainer. The LCRO therefore found that this conduct constituted unsatisfactory conduct by reason of the breach and also by...

8. 2017 NZSSAA 011 (31 March 2017) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...therefore heard all submissions from the parties on this issue and adjourned the substantive hearing for this issue to be determined. 2 Which application for review was considered on 25 May 2016? [4] The parties agree that the appeal is filed against the decision of the Benefit Review Committee which convened on 25 May 2016.1 However the parties disagree about which application instigated that review and therefore the subject of the review by that committee. Ms XXXX...

9. Auckland District Law society v Faleauto [2010] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...Mr Faleauto faced four charges of misconduct in his professional capacity. The charges were heard in Auckland on 19 November 2009. By its decision of 21 December 2009, this Tribunal found three of the charges proven and directed the parties to file submissions on penalty. Those submissions have since been received and considered. 2. The three charges proven are particularised in our decision of 21 December 2009, but in general terms involved; 2.1 Misconduct under S. 101(6) L...

10. MLC - 2013 February - Whānau trusts [pdf, 358 KB]

    ...stories during their lifetime but who had never, for whatever reason, been able to verify the fact that we still had some Māori land interests. Support was given for the formation of a whānau trust. An application to constitute a whānau trust was filed in 2004 and eventually heard in February of 2005. A whānau trust was formed at that stage with myself and two cousins being appointed as trustees. Initial lands vested into the whānau trust came from the uncle who had been appoint...