Search Results

1. Te Ariki o Kahukura v Moore – Manukorihi 1B Section 2 (2013) 313 Aotea MB 254 (313 AOT 254) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...views should be ascertained as to what form of trust if any should be established to administer and manage Manukōrihi 1B Section 2. Since that time, new submissions have been received, and invariably they repeat earlier statements that have been filed to date. [2] The issue for determination remains what form of trust, if any, and what specific terms of trust should be applied to adequately dispose of the present application before the Court. 313 Aotea MB 255 Applicant’...

2. Mr D v REAA [2013] NZREADT 36 [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...have led to speculation about the above situation which has attracted a community response very difficult for the applicant’s family to deal with. 3 [9] A number of affidavits in support of the application for non-publication have been filed with us. [10] A counsellor for the defendant and his wife expresses serious concern about the health and wellbeing of the defendant’s wife on account of past and further adverse publicity. In particular we note specialist medical a...

3. Auckland Standards Committee v Garrett [2011] NZLCDT 29 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...of that assault, but in the course of that hearing which occurred in the Magistrates Court in Tonga, for some reason the practitioner also was convicted of an assault (and fined $10), an assault which he has continued to deny. [3] Mr Garrett filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Tonga against that conviction. To all intents and purposes such an appeal operates effectively as a stay of the proceedings. That appeal has not been heard as far as the parties have been able to deter...

4. Auckland Standards Committee v Lee [2015] NZLCDT 33 [pdf, 36 KB]

   ...personally he has 14 days to meet the costs award failing which I would imagine that steps will be taken to refer the matter to the Law Society.” [7] Her Honour then went on to address the issue of quantum and made timetable directions for the filing of submissions in that regard. [8] Before making the orders just quoted Her Honour had made remarks which ought to have made it extremely plain to Mr Lee her concern at the manner in which he had conducted the litigation. For example...

5. [2013] NZEmpC 223 Wallace & Cooper Ltd t/a Andar Holdings v Irvine [pdf, 72 KB]

   ...this matter on 17 May 2013. 1 The challenge was unsuccessful and the defendant was awarded remedies marginally in excess of those awarded by the Authority. The parties’ representatives were unable to agree on costs and memoranda have been filed. [2] For the defendant, Mr Guest included in his memorandum a claim for interest on the remedies awarded. I decline to award interest at this stage of the matter. Any claim for interest should be made in the pleadings or, in exceptiona...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 225 Labour Inspector v Civic City Ltd [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...[2013] NZEmpC 198, [2013] NZEmpC 204. [2] Evidence put before the Court by the applicant now establishes the following. [3] In relation to 123J Limited, this company was, at 13 November 2013, in default of its statutory obligation to file an annual return and the Registrar of Companies was satisfied that 123J Limited had ceased to carry on business. The Registrar had initiated action to remove the company from the Companies Register in these circumstances. The Labour Ins...

7. A v X LCRO 2 / 2008 (20 February 2009) [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...instructions from Complainant A’s mother and assisting her with the execution of the revocation of the enduring power of attorney and will. [3] The application for review was received on 19 November. The Auckland Standards Committee 2 provided its file to this office. The application was forwarded to Mr x on 19 November 2008. Lawyer X was invited to respond to the application. On 26 November 2008 Lawyer X was invited by this office to respond to a number of specific questions...

8. D v T LCRO 36 / 2009 (27 March 2009) [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...of the Standards Committee was 12 March 2009 (when the faxed application was received). [4] Client D was aware that his formal application was made after the 30 working day period. He stated in the application that he considered the fax was filed within the 30 days and considered that he had complied with the instructions in the decision of the Standards Committee. He observed that the information provided by the Standards Committee did not mention the need for the application t...

9. BR v EP LCRO 008/2012 (3 September 2014) [pdf, 42 KB]

   ...the Lawyers Complaints Service against both EP and counsel appointed by MS to assist BR. The Complaint and the Standards Committee Decision [9] There were two aspects to EP’s involvement with BR. Firstly, he was instructed to review BR’s file. Secondly, he was engaged in attempts to negotiate a settlement for BR. BR’s complaint relates to criticism of EP’s performance in conducting the review. He makes no complaint regarding EP’S efforts to negotiate a settlement with...

10. Sell v Harris [pdf, 27 KB]

    SUMMARY Case: Sell & Anor v Harris & Ors File No: TRI 2008-101-000001/ DBH 02592 Court: WHT Adjudicator: P McConnell Date of Decision: 13 May 2009 Background The claimants filed a claim in the Tribunal for damages arising from their leaky home. In seeking an award of $285,160.88 for the loss they suffered, the claimants pursued claims against the first respondent (Mr Harris - builder), the second respondent (Auckland City Council - territorial authority), the th...