Search Results

1. [2016] NZSSAA 032 (20 April 2016) [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...Member Lady Tureiti Moxon - Member DECISION ON THE PAPERS Introduction [1] The appellant appeals against a decision of the Chief Executive upheld by a Benefits Review Committee to make a Special Needs Grant for food of $150. [2] Following the filing of this appeal the amount was increased to $180. [3] It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the amount that should have been paid was $250. Background [4] At the time relevant to this appeal the appellant was in receipt...

2. OI v CAZ LCRO 279 / 2011 (23 July 2012) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...the Lawyers Complaints Service informed Mr OI, a complainant, that the Committee had resolved that its enquiry into his complaint (made on behalf of his company) would be deferred pending the outcome of civil proceedings that had meanwhile been filed in relation to substantially the same matters arising in the complaint. The complaint is against law practitioner Mr WZ of CAZ. [2] Mr OI, through his legal representative, BAH (per Mr WX) objected to the Standards Committee deferring...

3. [2018] NZLCDT 29 Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Horsley [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...had been completed and the title to the property had been changed to the detriment of the older lady and the benefit of the younger one. Mr Horsley, you are censured by this Tribunal for your behaviour. Such a censure will remain always on your file and will demonstrate to the public that such behaviour will not go unmarked by the disciplinary process which has, in part, a consumer protection role. It will remind other members of the profession that the behaviour you exhibited wil...

4. E41 Ahad Khan - Development Engineering - EIC - Council [pdf, 696 KB]

   ...240 DX CP24134 AUCKLAND 1651 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 My full name is Ahad Khan. 1.2 My evidence is given on behalf of the Auckland Council (the Council) in its regulatory capacity in relation to the direct referral application filed by Panuku Development Auckland Limited (Applicant) seeking resource consents for the construction, occupation, use and maintenance of permanent and temporary infrastructure and undertaking of activities within the coastal marine area an...

5. CX-v-XC-Law-Firm-2015-NZDT-885-16-July-2015 [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...aggrieved that this is something DD did not prevent – rather he perceives DD as having argued with him on the phone the following day and having refused to go back to ask for further concessions. [14] DD disputes this also, and has shown hand-written file notes from that telephone call where he has recorded what he describes as ‘robust advice’ given to CX regarding the risk of losing the agreement entirely if he attempted to change it at that stage. DD also advised CX that ta...

6. National Standards Committee 1 v Peters [2020] NZLCDT 34 (27 October 2020) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...remain private. Lawyers must be able to hold to their obligations of confidentiality even in stressful and difficult circumstances. We accept that you now recognise your error of judgment, but this censure remains as a permanent record on your file and an ongoing reminder of your obligations. 2. There will be an order that the practitioner pay the costs of the Standards Committee in the sum of $8,281.25, s 249. 3. There will be an order that the New Zealand Law Society pay the...

7. Mita v Kumeroa - Kaitangata 4B and 3A (2006) 178 Aotea MB 140 (178 AOT 140) [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...father and the respondent's late mother. The respondent admitted to dismantling a boundary fence but emphasised that this was on his own land and did not adj oin the land of the applicant and his whanau. The Law [13] The applications were filed per sections 18 and 19 of the Act. As mentioned, section 18( 1)( c)( d) has application but, in the circumstances, I consider section 26 - Jurisdiction of the Court under Fencing Act 1978 is also appropriate in this case. 178 A6tea MB...

8. Johnston v Hawea - Poukawa 13B Trust (2008) 193 Napier MB 243 (193 NA 243) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...for rehearing that I have before me. [10] I t1lerefore dismissed this application at hearing advising that I would provide reasons later. The above constitutes t1lOse reasons. The application by the Johnston faction [11] This application was filed in very broad terms and drafted by Mr Hawea on behalf of the tmstees without legal advice. Botll in his application and in person Mr Hawea attacked the judgment in its terms, basically on the basis that it was wrong in fact and in tikang...

9. Rangi v Manaaki Farms Trust - Part Taraketi 1C2 (2005) 156 Aotea MB 125 (156 AOT 125) [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...Takarangi for Huhana Rangi Mrs Damita Pearse for the Trustees Judgment: 12 August 2005 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE L R HARVEY Introduction [1] These proceedings, which began as applications for injunction and enforcement of obligations of trust, were filed by Huhana Rangi, an owner in Part Taraketi 1 C2, the Manaaki Farms Trust. Mrs Rangi says she has been concerned at the administration of the land by the trustees. Her applications were heard on several occasions commencing 23 March 200...

10. Tane-Stockler - Hauturu East 8 (2003) 122 Otorohanga MB 17 (122 OT 17) [pdf, 288 KB]

    Minute Book: 122 OT 17 In the Maori Land Court of New Zealand Waikato Maniapoto District DECISION File: A20010006780 IN THE MATTER of an application for payment of monies pursuant to Section 242 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 by Lani Dawn Tane-Stockler and Norman Tane ApPEARANCES: Mr Catran for the applicants A01-6870/17 Mr Webster for the Ruapuha Uekaha Trust Mr Patrick Taylor in person Georgina Tane Gibbons in person This application follows the applications for s...