Search Results

1. LCRO 216/2018 AA v BB (28 November 2019) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...Introduction [1] Mr AA has applied to review a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee [X] to take no further action in respect of his complaint concerning the conduct of the respondent, Ms BB. Background [2] This is the third of three reviews filed by Mr AA, all of which arose out of the same unfortunate circumstances. [3] I propose to but briefly address the background to this application, that background having been summarised in the earlier decisions issued. [4] [JDY] L...

2. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 1 v Allan [2019] NZLCDT 25 [pdf, 351 KB]

   ...been given on the day, Mr W would have remained in custody during the sentencing process with the balance of the prison term to be served after sentencing which is what in fact happened. [48] Mr Allan disagreed with the contention that the late filing of submissions meant that the sentencing indication could not proceed. He made the following points (a) The Judge made no allowance for the fact that the Crown’s submissions had been filed late; (b) The Judge had decided not to re...

3. Te-Au-Reka-and-Family-Court-Rules-Consultation-Paper-270923-v2.pdf [pdf, 940 KB]

   ...Reka capability model is available here.1 Parties will have the ability to file, pay fees and track the progression of their applications and cases online through a portal. Where appropriate, they will be able to access court documents and documents filed by other parties, providing them with a single trusted source of information about their case. How will people interact with Te Au Reka? Te Au Reka will include an external portal through which information can be submitted and acce...

4. Auckland Standards Committees 3 and 4 v Banbrook [2017] NZLCDT 35 [pdf, 404 KB]

   ...provide a copy of his file to the Legal Complaints Service in contravention of a request made under s 147 of the Act. 3 [2] Full details of the charges and particulars of the charges are attached as Appendix A. [3] The respondent has filed no responses to the charges. A brief history of the opportunities given to the respondent to respond to the charges is: (a) Following the decision of the LCRO confirming the Standards Committee’s decision in respect of charge ASC3, th...

5. GN v HJ LCRO 30/2015 (22 June 2016) [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...rules 9 and 9.1, and decided that further action on the other issues Ms GN raised in her complaint was not necessary or appropriate. A finding of unsatisfactory conduct was recorded against Mr HJ, and he was fined $500. Background [2] The lawyers files disclose that Ms GN first instructed Mr HJ in January 2013 about difficulties she was having in relation to her employment, and the taking of annual leave. Ms GN sought further advice from Mr HJ the next day because she had concerns a...

6. WHT - Chair's directions for standard dwelling house claims [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...file an application before final costs and other necessary information is available should note this in a covering letter and provide reasons why all information is not yet available and an appropriate timeframe within which final information will be filed. 2.3 Applications are to be lodged on the official Tribunal application form and are to contain sufficient information to fairly inform the other parties of the substance of the claim. The application should have attached to it, a t...

7. Environment Court annual report 2008 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...convened to review the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. 2.2. Web Site Over 2007/08, the Court redeveloped its web pages to provide better information on the Court’s jurisdiction and to assist court users with accessing information on filing and appearing before the court. The site also contains details of the Court’s sittings and hearing schedules and will contain copies of decisions of wider than usual public interest. 2.3 Court Conference The Court held a confere...

8. Smith v The Proprietors of Mangaroa and other blocks (2015) 113 Waiariki MB 1 (113 WAR 1) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...respondents was directed to file and serve a cost memorandum by 16 January 2015, which they subsequently did. [3] Counsel for the applicants was directed to file and serve a cost memorandum by 4.00pm, Friday 23 January 2015. That memorandum was filed on 28 January 2015. [4] Counsel for the respondents filed memoranda dated 27 January and 2 February 2015 objecting initially to non-compliance with the timetable and then to the late filing of the applicants’ cost memorandum. [5] I...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 183 Scarborough v Micron Security Products Ltd interlocutory [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...judgment deals with some preliminary issues in the matter of Yasodhara Scarborough’s challenge by hearing de novo to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority. 1 [2] The background to that challenge is as follows. Ms Scarborough filed proceedings in the Authority but it concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider many of her claims arising out of the end of her employment at Micron Security Products Limited (Micron). The Authority concluded that it had j...

10. WTH Claims over $20k for a house - Chair's directions [pdf, 190 KB]

    ...file an application before final costs and other necessary information is available should note this in a covering letter and provide reasons why all information is not yet available and an appropriate timeframe within which final information will be filed. 2.3 Applications are to be lodged on the official Tribunal application form and are to contain sufficient information to fairly inform the other parties of the substance of the claim. The application should have attached to it, a t...