Search Results

1. Wetini v Hunia - Matatā Parish 39A4 (2011) 38 Waiariki MB 244 (38 WAR 244) [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...by making herself unavailable to act as a trustee from time to time. [4] The issues for determination are whether the trustees have acted in breach of the trust order and in breach of trust in failing to have the accounts prepared, audited and filed with the Court; failing to conclude the lease negotiations with Norske Skog; acting contrary to best practice by signing cash cheques and failing to seek directions. Failure to prepare accounts [5] As I noted in the direction of 4 May...

2. Prime – Tapui Lot 33 DP 113755 (2013) 61 Taitokerau MB 133 (61 TTK 133) [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...evidence Rangipikitia offered was that her great-grandmother and Matiu’s great-grandmother were half sisters, having the same father. But she did not explain who they were or what their connection was to the Tapui land. [14] Rangipikitia also filed additional whakapapa material in support of the application. This included a handwritten whakapapa going back five to six generations to the common tūpuna, Romana and Tara Haere. It notes, “This is whakapapa that connects the Ho...

3. Geary v ACC (Application by Plaintiff for Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 39 [pdf, 47 KB]

   1 (1) ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF EFG AND JKL (2) ORDER PREVENTING SEARCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FILE WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE CHAIRPERSON OR OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2013] NZHRRT 39 Reference No. HRRT 001/2012 UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT 1993 BETWEEN IAN RUSSELL GEARY PLAINTIFF AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION DEFENDANT AT WELLINGTON BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines...

4. Legal aid review of criminal legal aid fixed fees - 2013 [pdf, 627 KB]

   ...Concerns have also been raised about the potential for invoices to be out-of-time, and therefore refused, if retrospective amendments to grant are sought. We can clarify that –  the Legal Services Act 2011 provides for amendments to grant to be filed at any time, including retrospectively, up until the disposition of a case  if a retrospective amendment to grant is filed (prior to disposition of a case) it would be good practice to invoice for the matters on that amendment at...

5. Auckland Standards Committee v Morahan [2015] NZLCDT 35 [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...requirement that he have an instructing solicitor and Mr Thompson’s expectations if he was to be the instructing solicitor. Such actions exposed Mr Thompson to potential liability to the client and to professional obligations owed to the Court by filing documents referring to Mr Thompson as the instructing solicitor. [8] The use of Mr Thompson’s name without his knowledge is submitted to be an aggravating feature of the respondent’s conduct. [9] Mr Morris further submitted...

6. H & Anor v CAC 20004 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 30 [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...them guilty of unsatisfactory conduct following for a complaint by Vicki Nelson. On 23 July 2012 the Committee made penalty orders against the licensees and ordered publication of its decisions. 2 [2] On 15 November 2013, the licensees filed with our Registry an application for non-publication of the Committee’s liability and penalty decisions against them. The Real Estate Agents Authority opposed the application. [3] In a decision of 7 February 2014 ([2014] NZREADT 9) w...

7. Ferness v Lampeter LCRO 178 / 2010 (18 November 2010) [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...involved applicants who had in fact received the application personally. He says, “This case is different. Mr Ferness was not (and still has not been) notified by the Standards Committee.” [8] I have received a copy of the Standards Committee file and noted that the majority of the correspondence was exchanged between the Standards Committee and D on Mr Ferness’s behalf. This includes a Notice of Hearing which was in fact addressed to Mr Ferness, c/- of D. There is clear...

8. I v P LCRO 18 / 2009 (11 February 2009) [pdf, 18 KB]

   ...traversed above) concerned disputes which were extant between 4 Complainant I and Lawyer P. It was noted by the Committee that it was not useful for such material to be forwarded to the Committee. [26] From the correspondence and documents on the file it is clear that the parties were given an adequate opportunity to make their views known and they fully availed themselves of that opportunity. [27] It is also clear from the correspondence and the documents on the file that the...

9. U v F LCRO 26 / 2009 (6 April 2009) [pdf, 17 KB]

   ...complaint appeared to be vexatious in nature and dismissed the complaint pursuant to s 138(1)(c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. Complainant U sought a review of that decision by application made on 12 March 2009. [4] On reading the file I concluded that there was not a prima facie case for Lawyer F to answer. On this basis Complainant U was invited to attend a “case to answer” hearing to present any further argument or evidence in support of the application and to d...

10. FC v RU LCRO 273/2012 (11 July 2014) [pdf, 118 KB]

    ...to which it related was not what she had wanted. [17] When the Committee gave its decision on 3 June 2009 it indicated that it was aware of allegations by Ms FC that her husband had forged her signature on a document and that Mr RU should have filed documents more promptly. Second complaint [18] Ms FC complained that Mr RU’s representation of her interests in the relationship property matter was “entirely unsatisfactory” and “was negligent service”.2 Ms FC supplied...