Search Results

1. VS v CN 51/2016 LCRO [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...lawyers’ fees were excessive for the services provided. [22] Mr VS sought to transfer the company’s instructions on settlement to other lawyers so that could proceed according to the terms of the agreement on 29 February 2016. He requested the files from the firm, and the firm’s response was that it would expect payment of the outstanding account before forwarding files. [23] Mr VS contended that he had not received a thorough breakdown of the charges in support of both bills...

2. Yates v Te Kohanga Lots 1 and 3-27 Trust (2010) 13 Taitokerau MB 36 (13 TTK 36) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...contractors from having access over Lot 1. Around this time the local power company also endeavoured to lay a power cable over the trust’s land to Lot 25 but did not proceed further once it was pointed out that the trust had not consented. Information filed subsequent to the hearing indicates that earlier this year Ms Yates requested a power easement from the trust but the trust declined. Discussion [21] Mr Potter argues that the public reserve created on 20 January 1966 was can...

3. Preece v Hokotehi Moriori Trust (2010) 5 Te Waipounamu MB 83 (5 TWP 83) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...and is continuing to cause considerable angst for Moriori and Ngāti Mutunga. An inquiry is requested.” 5 Te Waipounamu MB 85 [9] The matter was called on 15 February 2010 at Waitangi, Chatham Islands. Prior to then the applicant had filed a voluminous affidavit. He was represented at the hearing and had arranged for witnesses to come from various parts of New Zealand to give evidence. During the course of the hearing it became apparent that both he and his counsel had...

4. Notman v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZACA 01 [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...hospital on 10 November. A short period of ERC followed. The 3 evidence as to how long he was on ERC is inconsistent. Mr Notman thought it was two weeks. The IRD record shows it was just under one month. An internal Corporation file note (7 December 2012) recorded that it was probably two months. The IRD record shows he returned to his employment with the NZ Forest Service. [10] Mr Notman is unclear about his employment thereafter. He had jobs from time to time,...

5. SM v NH LCRO 211/2015 (20 July 2016) [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...that ACC had made on 2 February 2007 (first ACC review) declining him cover. ACC’s process at the time for dealing with review applications it received was to administratively process the review through its review unit, and to forward a review file to an independent reviewer.3 [6] In that role, Mr NH generated administrative correspondence and documentation in preparation for the first ACC review hearing. In amongst those materials Mr NH’s name appears as the ACC contact person. AC...

6. DL v EX LCRO 128/2012 (16 December 2013) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...to the Standards Committee having issued, by separate decisions, its conclusion as to the substantive complaint and as to penalty. Mr DM, who represented Mr DL, submitted that following the substantive decision and the review application being filed, the Standards Committee was then functus officio. [20] The (first) substantive decision stated that:4 The Committee deemed it appropriate to defer making any orders pursuant to s 156 or a direction of publication under s 142(2) of t...

7. Jeuken v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 403) & van Schreven [2018] NZREADT 5 [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...Mr Jeuken [21] Mr Jeuken submitted that a licensee has an obligation to investigate and check everything which is claimed to be on the property being sold. He submitted that Ms van Schreven could have gone to the Council and viewed the property files, and thus learned that there was no sewer lateral to the property. [22] Accordingly, he submitted, the Committee was wrong to find that the absence of a sewer lateral was a hidden defect, that neither Ms van Schreven nor anyone else h...

8. Fredricsen v Hikuwai - Wainui D Block (2016) 143 Taitokerau MB 135 (143 TTK 135) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...that the status of the land had remained Māori freehold land and determining the correct ownership of the shares. 3 [4] There are currently seven owners of the land holding a total of 58.333 shares. Procedural History [5] The application was filed by Ms Fredricsen on 10 September 2015, together with an affidavit setting out her grounds in support of the grant of an urgent injunction. A copy 1 32 Northern MB 33-34 (32 N 33-34);...

9. Jones v Accident Compensation [2016] NZACA 06 [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...application was heard in May 2016 and dismissed in June 2016. It was dismissed on the basis of an inordinate period of delay in commencing the appeal, an inadequate explanation for the delay and prejudice to the Corporation which had destroyed its file and most of the evidence upon which the earlier decisions had been based. The review decision was also 2 missing. Moreover, in assessing the merits of the substantive appeal, it was found Mr Jones could not prevail. The overal...

10. O v I [2018] NZIACDT 23 (18 June 2018) [pdf, 231 KB]

    ...complainant engaged the Adviser to submit an EOI and application for residence to INZ on her behalf in September 2015. The complainant claimed she did not sign or receive a written agreement from the Adviser. The Adviser did not submit a client file or any further evidence to the Authority that disproved the Complainant's claim. By failing to ensure that a written agreement was provided to the complainant once she decided to proceed, it appears the Adviser did not meet his obli...