Search Results

1. [2025] NZLVT 13 - Northview Capital Ltd v Hamilton City Council (21 March 2025) [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   BEFORE THE LAND VALUATION TRIBUNAL AT AUCKLAND I TE TARAIPŪNARA WĀRIU WHENUA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision No. [2025] NZLVT 013 IN THE MATTER of a claim for compensation under s84 of the Public Works Act 1981 BETWEEN NORTHVIEW CAPITAL LIMITED (ENV-2023-AKL-73) Claimant AND HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL Respondent Tribunal: District Court Judge K G Reid (Chairperson) Tribunal Member P J M Mahoney Tribunal Member V M Winiata Hearing: at Hamilton on 22-26 July, 5-9 August and 10

2. Waitangi Tribunal - Part II Te Urewera [pdf, 6.9 MB]

   T    E  U     R  E  W  E  R  A P   A  R  T     I  I,  V    O    L    U    M    E  1 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz W  A  I�

3. [2011] NZEmpC 148 Service and Food Workers Union PSA v Pact Group [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...where issues have been resolved which should assist all parties in their future relationships. For those reasons, my initial inclination is not to make an order for costs. If either party wishes to seek an order for costs, a memorandum should be filed and served within 20 working days after the date of this decision. The other parties will then have a further 15 working days in which to respond. A A Couch Judge Signed at 2.00 pm on 17 November 2011...

4. [2008] NZEmpC WC 15/08 Weston v Fraser [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...will be no order for costs. [51] Once costs have been determined then the Court will deal with the funds that have been paid in. [52] If costs cannot be agreed they may be the subject of an exchange of memoranda, the first of which is to be filed within 60 days from the date of this judgment with a further 30 days to reply. B S Travis Judge Judgment signed at 4.45pm on 4 July 2008

5. Wright v CAC 10056 & Woods [2011] NZREADT 21 [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...discussions about the boundary. He personally had no dealings with Mr and Mrs Woods. He told the Tribunal Ms Wright was very meticulous and detailed in her dealings with purchasers and in her appraisals. [15] The Woods then gave evidence. They had filed a joint brief of evidence and spoke to it. [16] Mrs Woods gave evidence first and told the Tribunal that this was the third property that she and her husband had purchased, the second one in the Titirangi area. She confirmed t...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 194 Tuala v Linfox Logistics (N.Z.) Ltd [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...of an application for a stay of execution AND IN THE MATTER of an application for security of costs BETWEEN VIANNEY TUALA Plaintiff AND LINFOX LOGISTICS (N.Z.) LIMITED Defendant Hearing: (on the papers filed 15 and 29 April and submissions dated 2 and 10 July 2015) Counsel: S Fonua, counsel for the plaintiff M Wisker and L Adams, counsel for the defendant Judgment: 4 November 2015 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A...

7. Masson v REAA & Damerell, Aikin, Lafferty [2013] NZREADT 26 [pdf, 64 KB]

   ...[c] Whether the auctioneer expressly stated that he refused to re-open the auction; and [d] Whether the licensees did all that could be reasonably expected of a salesperson. [20] As Ms Pridgeon put it for the Authority, the briefs of evidence filed on behalf of the licensees and the appellant raise, among other things, the following points: [a] During the auction but prior to the property selling, Ms Aikin approached the appellant to see if she would bid. The appellant told Ms Aiki...

8. CAC306 v Zhou & Anor [2016] NZREADT 12 [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...Zhou’s “boss” as they both used that term, and that Mr Zhou was led by Mr She in terms of the offending; although the said series of 10 false rental appraisals were entirely the business and offending of Mr Zhou. [55] The DVD recording was filed by Mr Zhou on 28 October 2015 and was not part of the evidence at the substantive hearing before us. [56] If counsel for Mr Zhou is submitting that he has not received natural justice in terms of procedures, such a review concept is no...

9. Hunstanton v Gretna LCRO 27 / 2010 (13 July 2010) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...a number of people within the firm. Their charge-out rates differed from $180 per hour to $250 per hour. These hourly rates were referred to by Mr YY in his report. This was a proper reflection of the attributes of the lawyers who worked on the file and no further adjustment was necessary. The reasonable costs of running a practice [46] While this matter will be of relevance to the setting of any fee, it does not require special consideration in this case. Any fee agreement ente...

10. TE v Wellington Standards Committee LCRO 100/2010, 92/2011, 153/2012 (1 February 2013) [pdf, 126 KB]

    ...the definitions in section 7(1)(a) require that the conduct takes place at a time when the lawyer is providing regulated services. I accept TF’s submission that there is nothing in the Standards Committee determination or any material on the file that indicates that section 7(1)(b) has any relevance to the determination. [46] In Shrewsbury v Rothesay, the LCRO discussed the provisions in Australian jurisdictions parallel to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act and also considered th...