Search Results

1. Davis & Ors v CAC 20004 & Anor [2013] NZREADT 102 [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...Mr Smith, the agents’ manager. Their evidence where relevant is referred to in the Tribunal’s decision and in the preceding paragraph. An expert Mr Kirkpatrick (a lawyer) was also called. He said that he could find no evidence on the Council file that the ‘limited occupation right’ had in fact been imposed by the Council as part of its resource consent and that it was almost impossible to find any reference to it on the Council file, including the LIM. He concluded that there...

2. Tahuparae – Marino Henare Pumipi Rangitihi Tahuparae (2013) 60 Taitokerau MB 46 (60 TTK 46) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...persons entitled to a grant of administration not intend to seek any such grant? [17] Under the Administration Act 1969, Cynthia and Marino’s children are entitled to apply to the High Court for a grant of letters of administration. [18] When filing the application for succession, Cynthia wrote the words “don’t know” on the application form in relation to question 11. Question 11 asked whether or not there was a will and, importantly, whether the persons entitled to a grant o...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 245 Bracewell v Richmond Services Ltd [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...which the plaintiff worked and in which client A resides. This judgment does not identify that area and so there is no prohibition upon publishing any of the content of this judgment. [29] After the defendant’s statement of defence has been filed and served, there will be a telephone directions conference with the parties’ representatives to progress the plaintiff’s challenge to a hearing. It may be appropriate, also, to review the terms of the stay that I have granted once...

4. GK v TV LCRO 44 / 2011 (24 November 2011) [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...the matter has been dealt with by the Standards Committee and the LCRO from that perspective as well. 7 [34] In this review application, Ms GK alleges that all material relating to the contracting out agreement has been removed from the files of Mr TV and Mr TU. That is not something that was before the Standards Committee and I am unclear as to the relevance of the observation, unless it is to suggest some form of conspiracy between the various parties. If that is the case...

5. North v Worksop LCRO 213 / 2009 (9 April 2010) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...earlier material he had forwarded. He also forwarded a letter prepared by the director of T & C Ltd which responded to the comments and information in the Practitioner’s 14 October letter. Having considered all of the material on the file I am of the view that the allegations and counter allegations arising from that letter have no material bearing on the complaints against the Practitioner and accordingly I have not taken them into account, and do not intend to refer to t...

6. Accident Compensation Corporation v Smith [2015] NZACA 05 [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...whether a higher court has upheld the decision? [38] The Corporation is therefore given leave to appeal to the High Court against the Authority’s decision of 6 March 2014. [39] The question of costs is reserved. Any party may seek costs by filing an application and submissions within 21 days, with the other party having 14 days to respond. ___________________ D J Plunkett

7. RC v ZN LCRO 74/2012 (21 July 2015) [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...[13] The review proceeded with a hearing attended by Mr RC and Mr QT. Both Ms ZN and Ms DF were excused from attending the hearing and no further submissions were provided by either of them. I have of course reviewed the Standards Committee file in detail and have taken this into account along with the material provided to this Office by the parties during the course of this review. [14] In determining the complaint, the Standards Committee took note of previous Standards Committ...

8. AX v ZM LCRO 244/2012 (23 April 2014) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...parcel, and Mr ZM’s failure to attend to that basic protection should result in an adverse professional disciplinary finding against him. [21] Mr ZM said that he had produced hard copies of relevant information from his physical and electronic files, and gave these to a courier for delivery to Ms AX’s 1 NZ Post receipt (31 December 2010). http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2008/0214/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM1437862...

9. Xu v Noon [2014] NZIACDT 46 (08 April 2014) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...submissions (whether or not the Authority or the complainant makes submissions) within 15 working days of the issue of this decision. [70.3] The Authority and the complainant may reply to any submissions made by the adviser within 5 working days of him filing and serving those submissions. DATED at WELLINGTON this 8 th day of April 2014. ___________________ G D Pearson Chair

10. Bowdler - Waikawa Village Section 26 (2008) 27 Nelson MB 227 (27 N 227) [pdf, 363 KB]

    ...VERONICA BOWDLER Applicant 18 January 2006 at 117 South Island MB 194 9 May 2007 at 27 Nelson MB 56 Appearances: M B R Wilson for the applicant Judgment: 14 May 2008 RESERVE DECISION OF JUDGE C M WAINWRIGHT Introduction [1] This application, filed by Laura Bowdler pursuant to section 289 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, seeks to partition a large section of the block known as Waikawa Village Section 26. [2] Waikawa Village Section 26 comprises 1.1331 hectares of Maori freeh...