Search Results

1. Staite v Greenville - Paeroa East 4B2C2 (2002) 264 Rotorua MB 132 (264 ROT 132) [pdf, 711 KB]

   ...built. It was considerably cheaper to build than the figure given by Mr Pitman but Greenville did not say why. Again I cannot speculate why that is so, for it is a reasonable possibility that the lesser costs reflects a different length or bank profile or other factors relating to the particular site upon which it was built. Again there was no cross examination of Mr Pitman as to his evidence as to replacement costs and I must accept that and I do. I also note that the 12 metre pre-...

2. The Elected Representatives v Hauraki Maori Trust Board (2007) 127 Waikato MB 163 (127 W 163) [pdf, 2.7 MB]

   ...Elected Reps have also applied for a pre-hearing award of costs under section 79 of TTWMA. This decision concerns the application for pre-hearing costs. [4) The proceedings are still at a very preliminary stage and full affidavits have not yet been filed. The Elected Reps have advised that they plan to adduce some 6-8 affidavits in relation to the JMIO ratification process and that, unlike the Board, the Elected Reps do not have access to the Trust fund or paid Board staff to undert...

3. LCRO 235/2014 SV v BG and HD (18 July 2017) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...been imposed under the s 156 of the Act had the conduct occurred after 1 August 2008 (either in substitution for, or in addition to, any available LPA penalty). [14] As noted above, Mr SV wrote to NZLS protesting the first decision, but did not file an application for review. His letter to NZLS included the following:4 I do not believe I was aware of the fall and brain injury in about 2002. The implied incompetence is in any case not consistent with the medical advice. … Th...

4. Eddy [2017] NZREADT 37 [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...action on the appellants’ complaint against Mr Chrisp. The appeals are therefore dismissed. [45] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out appeal rights. Any appeal must be filed in the High Court within 20 working days of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision is served. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. ________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson...

5. Tanerau-King - Mangamaunu 1A Part Section 19 (2019) 53 Te Waipounamu MB 220 (53 TWP 220) [pdf, 307 KB]

   ...knowledge and experience to the role of trustee. [18] Suzanne King, Terehia Faithful, Moana Thompsett, Matene Starkey, Phillip Starkey, Amiria Thompsett, Awhina-Anne Starkey, Cheryl Priest, Phyllis Teresa Papworth, Gayle Rae and Mark Galbraith all filed submissions stating that they participated in the AGM and voted in the election and were satisfied with how it was run. They all believed the process to be fair and reasonable and did not witness any inappropriate or dishonest behavio...

6. Family Court rewrite submission: Human Rights Commission [pdf, 734 KB]

   ...http://www.refworld.org/docid/4fe070042.html. 20 CCS Disability Action Briefing to Incoming Ministers Briefing to Ministers of Justice, Courts, Corrections and Police, January 2018. Available at https://www.ccsdisabilityaction.org.nz/assets/resource-files/Briefing-to-the- Ministers-of-Justice-Courts-Corrections-and-Police.pdf. 21 See discussion in A Douglass Mental Capacity: Updating New Zealand’s Law and Practice (Report for the New Zealand Law Foundation, Dunedin, July 2016). See part...

7. Guide to completing Disputes Tribunal claim form - Te-Reo [pdf, 197 KB]

   Te whakamahi i tēnei aratohu Mā te aratohu nei e tuku ngā whakamōhiotanga hei āwhina i a koe ki te whakatutuki i te puka tono, me te tuku i ētahi take nui i pīrangitia ai ēnei pārongo. He nui ngā take e whai tikanga ana ēnei pārongo e tonoa ana i roto i te puka tono. Mā te tuku i ngā pārango katoa e whakatūturu te whanonga wawe o tō tono, ā, e whai wā ōrite ngā taha e rua ki te kohi taunakitanga e pā ana ki te take e tohea ana. Hei runga i a koe te

8. LCRO 26/2019 ET v CG (29 January 2021) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...Burmeister v O’Brien [2010] 2 NZLR 395 (HC) at [234]. 13 At [10]–[11]. 14 Application for review, Part 7. 5 Review [24] Both parties consented to this review being completed on the material to hand, which includes the Standards Committee file. Submissions for Mr CG [25] Mr KN submitted that it was unnecessary for the decision to be reviewed as Mr ET was relying upon the content of a Family Harm Investigation which had been available prior to the Committee’s decis...

9. Stone v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 408) & Lim [2017] NZREADT 23 [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...complaint is referred back to the Committee and the Committee is directed to inquire into it. [45] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out appeal rights. Any appeal must be filed in the High Court within 20 working days of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision is served. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. ___________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairpers...

10. LCRO 202/2015 BT v DG (1 October 2018) [pdf, 234 KB]

    ...office to conduct a review. 2. Section 132(1) of the act provides that “any person may complain to the appropriate complaints service about the conduct of a practitioner or former practitioner”. 3. In any event, the committee decision (and the file), give clear indication that Mr BT had instructed you. His complaint (and the committee decision) focuses on Mr BT’s complaints regarding the representation provided. 6 [21] Dr DG maintained his views as to the jurisdiction of th...