Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Chen [2015] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 32 KB]

   ...Consent Memorandum including Practitioner’s admission of charge May it please the Tribunal: 11. This memorandum is submitted to the Tribunal jointly on behalf of Auckland Standards Committee 5 and the practitioner, through their counsel. It is filed in conjunction with the disciplinary charge and a supporting affidavit on behalf of the Standards Committee. 12. The practitioner admits the charge, a copy of which is attached to this memorandum. In particular, the practitioner ad...

2. Wallace & Anor v CAC20006 & Anor [2015] NZREADT 3 [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...had their $100,000 sale commission liability reduced by $10,000. That is a commendable approach by the agency and the licensees.” Further evidence (and submissions) for the complainants [4] Since that decision the complainant, Mr M J Baker, has filed an affidavit sworn 23 October 2014 attaching an email from an employee (a sales consultant and interior stylist) at BoConcept dated 20 October 2014 stating: 3 “To replace the three units you originally bought today would cost...

3. DV v WE LCRO 172 / 2010 (17 August 2011) [pdf, 64 KB]

   ...complaint” it forms the view that further action is unnecessary or inappropriate. This indicates that such a decision may take place after an initial decision has been made to inquire into the complaint. [20] From my review of the Standards Committee file, there has been minimal, if any, inquiry undertaken by the Committee. The complaint was sent to the Respondent for his reply. He replied denying the Applicant’s allegations in the manner briefly summarised in paragraph [4] abo...

4. BR v CS LCRO 226/2013 (20 October 2014) [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...confirmed his earlier one. He subsequently rendered a bill for these two opinions for $6500 which we duly paid in full on 23 November 2009 which you will observe is more than two years ago. However we decided to ignore his advice and proceeded to file our appeal with the Privy Council. This was the first case ever heard from the [Country]. It was heard on 22 October 2012 just six months ago and was allowed.3 … [3] Following receipt of the judgment Mr BR sent an invoice to CS...

5. Tweeddale v Pearson [pdf, 81 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: Tweeddale v Pearson File No: TRI 2008-101-000067/ DBH 02946 Court: WHT Adjudicator: R Pitchforth Date of Decision: 1 December 2009 Background This is a decision dealing with claims made against: First and second respondents: Mr Pearson and Ms Tucker as previous owners Third respondent: Palmerston North City Council Fourth respondent: Mr Humphries as the alleged project manager and director of Humphries Construction Ltd, the construction company Fif...

6. River Oaks Farm Ltd & Ors as Trustees of Ingodwe Trust v Olsson [pdf, 24 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: River Oaks Farm Ltd & Ors v Olsson & Ors (Ingodwe Trust) File No: TRI 2008-101-000052/DBH 05463 Court: WHT Adjudicator: CB Ruthe Date of Decision: 5 August 2009 Background The claimants are the trustees of the Ingodwe Trust that owns the subject property. About a year after the property was purchased, the claimants noticed a leak. The first WHRS assessor's report was completed in 2005 indicating minor problems with remedial work estimated at $1...

7. O'Connor v MacDee McLennan Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 67 [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...am not able to apportion responsibility between them for the payment of the awarded amount. If any of the liable respondents wishes me to make an order they should give notice to the other respondents and the Tribunal by 21 December 2011 and file affidavit evidence in support by 31 January 2012. The other Page 9 respondents will have 15 working days to reply and then, if justified, an apportionment can be made. [40] Apportionment issues do not affect the respondents’ lia...

8. Hagenson v ACC [2014] NZACA 1 [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...inadvertently be denying the parties the right to seek leave to appeal my decision to the High Court, and invited counsel to make any further submissions relating to my expressed preference by 18 December 2013. [3] On 18 December 2013, counsel filed a joint memorandum in which they agreed that Mr Hagenson’s relevant earnings should be fixed at $750.23 per week and that ACC would pay Mr Hagenson costs and disbursements on the appeal of $3,100.00, and invited the Authority to issue a b...

9. Clarke v Downs Lake - Taupo Forest Trust [2014] Māori Appellate Court MB 16 (2014 APPEAL 16) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...are based on the south side of the Lake. 2014 Māori Appellate Court MB 17 b) He could not nor could his descendants claim mana whenua in the Tauhara sector. [3] The appellant expanded on the grounds of appeal in her letter filed with the appeal dated 22 May 2013: a) Ngāti Tutetawha is but one of numerous hapū who link to Ngāti Tuwharetoa; b) Ngāti Tutetawha qualify for inclusion within the wider Tuwharetoa group based on whakapapa and ahi kā;...

10. AP v Standards Committee X LCRO 317 / 2012 (25 November 2013) - Costs Decision [pdf, 60 KB]

    ...3 Email from Mr CF to LCRO (24 September 2013). 5 [18] Mr CF’s costs application cites the vexatious nature of Ms AP’s bias allegations and the want of a proper foundation for them. The file indicated that the responses to the allegations were provided by the Committee members, apparently before Mr CF’s assistance was sought. No further information was sought by this Office but when a hearing was scheduled, further submiss