Search Results

1. Wellington Standards Committee 1 v King [2024] NZLCDT 46 (18 December 2024) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...practice. Although she had very few clients, she appeared to have no clear systems for dealing with correspondence, particularly email and its proper filing. She also did not have precedent documents to assist her in drafting. Of the existing 16 files, 10 clients had not been sent a letter of engagement. The manner in which conflict checks were carried out was also deficient and posed risks. 5 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rule...

2. LCRO 200/2020 SK and WP v AQ (27 October 2023) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...of engagement. [7] Work on the applications commenced immediately after the appointment and continued through that day, into the evening and the following morning. [8] The paperwork was finalised with the respondent on 29 November 2018 and filed at the Family Court before the 3:30 pm deadline for filing such applications for immediate attention by the Court. [9] The following day, 30 November 2018, the Court granted the application for the parenting order but on terms the resp...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 94 Fifield v Rotorua City Council [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...application under cl 12A of Schedule 2 to the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) as frivolous and vexatious. [9] Mr Fifield had the period of 28 days thereafter to challenge the Authority’s determination. He did not do anything, however, until filing these proceedings with the Employment Court on 24 July 2012. Such was the state of the pleadings then filed that I directed that Mr Fifield was to amend these. Although their handwritten nature was not a disqualifying facto...

4. [2016] NZEmpC 15 Holman v CTC Aviation Training (NZ) Ltd interlocutory [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...from the factual position which it presented at the Authority and upon which the plaintiff has based his challenge on a non de novo basis. Counsel agreed that the present application could be dealt with on the papers. Accordingly, I directed the filing of submissions by counsel and these have now been received. [6] In their submissions counsel have perhaps traversed too substantially the factual controversies existing in this case. The disputed facts and the discrepancies in...

5. DEF v Accident Compensation Corporation & KLM (Jurisdiction Objection) [2014] NZHRRT 27 [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...Knell for second defendant Ms K Evans for Privacy Commissioner DATE OF DECISION: 13 June 2014 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON JURISDICTION OBJECTION BY SECOND DEFENDANT 2 Background – outline of positions [1] In these proceedings filed on 29 October 2013 the plaintiff alleges that her ACC file containing personal information of a highly sensitive and confidential nature was stolen from the second defendant at a time when the second defendant had possession of the file fo...

6. ID v QW LCRO 222 / 2010 (29 September 2011) [pdf, 58 KB]

   ...The Practitioner represented the Applicant as his defence counsel in respect of criminal charges in late 1998. There was a hung jury and in the subsequent trial the Applicant was represented by other counsel. [2] Many years later the Applicant filed complaints against the Practitioner (and counsel who later represented him in the second trial) claiming that the Practitioner ought not to have acted for him on the basis that he was conflicted. The Applicant said that he had wanted h...

7. Lewis & Ors [2011] NZWHT Auckland 13 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...leaky home. While not disputing this house is a leaky home, the Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing has concluded that the claim is not an eligible claim because the house was built more than ten years before the claim was filed. The claimants have applied for reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 (the Act). The Issues [2] The key issues to be determined in this cas...

8. A J Ball Family Trust [2012] NZWHT Auckland 37 [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Mr Ball and Mr O’Neill are the owners of 44B Carlisle Road, Browns Bay as trustees of the AJ Ball Family Trust. On 5 October 2011 they filed an application for an assessor’s report with the Department of Building and Housing. The assessor and the chief executive concluded that the claim was not an eligible claim because it was not filed within ten years of when the dwell...

9. Pace v Cain - Parish of Manurewa 196 and 197A Section 2B 4 [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 342 (2017 APPEAL 342) [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...Manurewa Lots 196 and 197A Section 2B 4 is Māori freehold land comprising 0.1619 hectares. An ahu whenua trust was constituted over the block on 19 March 1975.2 The sole responsible trustee is Raymond Kett. [5] In 2016 three applications were filed concerning the land:3 (a) to determine the life interest held by Jean Francis Meta; (b) to confirm a resolution of assembled owners to sell the block to Jodi Cain; and (c) to terminate the ahu whenua trust. [6] They were heard tog...

10. [2017] NZEnvC 161 Minister of Corrections v Otorohanga District Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

    ...to any party; Minister of Corrections v ODC Confidentiality Order September 2017 2 (c) these orders apply to any brief of evidence which refers to or quotes from the works requirements. The brief of evidence: (i) is to be kept on the court file and is to have a notice attached notifying the reader that it contains confidential information; and (ii) is not be uploaded to the Environment Court's website; (d) the transcript produced from that part of the hearing at which the...