Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 109 Wellington City Transport Limited t/a Go Wellington v NZ Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Employees Union [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...explained above, the plaintiff's challenge is dismissed. [40] Costs are reserved. My tentative view is that, as this is something of a test case, costs should lie where they fall but if the defendant takes a different view then Ms Kennedy should file submissions within 28 days and Mr McIlraith will have a like period of time in which to file submissions in response. A D Ford Judge Judgment signed at 11.45 am on 13 July 2015...

2. EO and EP v VO LCRO 240 / 2010 (3 August 2011) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...the vendors‟ interest. Communications between Practitioner and purchaser’s solicitor [11] Also on 10 December the Practitioner communicated by telephone with the solicitor acting for the purchaser who had made the pre-auction offer. The file contained copies of the following communications faxed between the lawyers: [12] A 11 December 2009 letter from the purchasers‟ solicitor to the Practitioner recorded: “We note your telephone advice of yesterday that our client...

3. PU v RW LCRO 15/2013 (4 September 2014) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...has not signed a client engagement letter a lawyer has no legal recourse against that client for unpaid legal fees. [37] Mr PU explained that, unlike most practitioners, his policy was not to charge a client for work expended on a conveyancing file if the sale or purchase did not proceed. Any work undertaken on a conveyancing matter did not attract a charge until such time as the letter of engagement was completed. [38] The committee was not persuaded by that argument, noting that...

4. Wallis & Anor as Trustees of The Seaview Trust v Wet-Seal NZ Ltd [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...and Mr. Spiekerman. 70. It was acknowledged that Wet-Seal actively became involved in the remedial work, removed the tiles, cleaned off the failed membrane and replaced it. No charge was made for this work but evidence was given that it took a file://JUSTWNNTS/VOL1/GROUPS/WHT%20WELLINGTON/Claims%202007/TRI-2007-101-14%20Seaview%20Trust%20-----%20CLOSED%20-----/search/runRemoteLink.do file://JUSTWNNTS/VOL1/GROUPS/WHT%20WELLINGTON/Claims%202007/TRI-2007-101-14%20Seaview%20Trust%20-----%20C...

5. Adams & Anor v Easthope & Ors [2014] NZWHT Auckland 2 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...Adams purchased a property in Waiheke which they subsequently renovated and extended. Even before the end of the maintenance period leaks occurred and despite various repair attempts further and more widespread leaking occurred. Mr and Mrs Adams filed an application with the Department of Building and Housing in late 2002 and the assessor’s report confirmed that they had a leaky home and found the claim was eligible in relation to the alterations. [2] They subsequently file...

6. Ron Lunken Family Trust v Haywood Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 66 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...Construction Limited (Haywood), the first respondent, for a house to be built for Mr and Mrs Lunken. Mr and Mrs Lunken first noticed leaking in 2007 and the claim was found eligible on 17 April 2008. [2] The application for adjudication was filed on 14 May 2010 and the Trustees obtained alternative costs for repair and replacement. After removing the cladding they decided to demolish and replace the existing dwelling and claimed $460,512.50 for the cost of this work, con...

7. Mahoney v Trustees of the Nicholas George Te Paa Whanau Trust - Okahu 1 and other blocks [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 417 (2015 APPEAL 417) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...counsel for the respondent. 4 [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 394 (2015 APPEAL 394). 2015 Maori Appellate Court MB 420 [8] We note that following the lower court hearing the appellants filed audited accounts prepared in relation to funds received by the IMC from Grbich and Haines. The accounts were also filed to demonstrate that the IMC were accounting properly for monies received in anticipation of the constitution of the...

8. UJ v OO LCRO 143 / 2012 (9 April 2013) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...of Claim. [9] The terms of the agreement were recorded in a memorandum, which was sent by Mr OO to Mr UJ. Mr UJ made some comments about the memorandum, which was then signed by Mr OO on Mr UJ’s behalf. [10] Although the memorandum was not filed with the court due to an oversight on the part of legal representatives on both sides, title of [Dot] was transferred to Mr UJ, the refinancing occurred, the mortgagee sale was avoided and Ms UK’s Notice of Claim was registered, alon...

9. VR v AL LCRO 236 / 2012 (31 May 2013) [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...between the parties on 12 December 2011 (in which Ms AL noted that she wished to explain the terms of the Agreement to Ms VR) an appointment was then made for Ms VR to attend at Ms AL’s office on 19 December. [6] Following that meeting Ms AL made a file note in which she recorded her advice to Ms VR, particularly her advice with regard to the terms of the Agreement which provided for property to be divided in the event of separation according to contribution unless the couple had...

10. CM v JD & Ors LCRO 006/2013 (10 March 2016) [pdf, 59 KB]

    ...discussion. I also referred the parties to two previous decisions of this Office involving nominee company lending.19 [27] I record here that in accordance with usual practice, I had received and thoroughly reviewed the whole of the Standards Committee file prior to the hearing. Mr CM came to the hearing with a large file of documents and (it would seem) submissions which he wished to read to me. I ascertained this material was no more than a repeat of the material already provided to...