Search Results

1. Wellington Standards Committee v Twigley [2016] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 601 KB]

   ...invoice itself was dated 31 December 2014 but was not issued until the practitioner wound up his practice on 18 March 2015. [50] It was the expert evidence of Mr Hughes that he could find “no work that justified” the $3,000 invoice. [51] In his affidavit in reply, relating to the B matter, firstly Mr Twigley blamed his client for not communicating with his office from late 2013, meaning apparently that she did not receive sufficient attention as a result. But further, he sugges...

2. LCRO 116/2017 GC v KM (31 May 2018) [pdf, 420 KB]

   ...the client”. Circumstances in which this rule has been held to apply include where a client was encountering difficulties in making contact with the lawyer concerned, where “it was evident that no preparation had been done to complete [the] affidavit and instead [the client] was required to wait late at night while the document was completed”.43 [114] In another illustration where a client’s repeated requests to the client’s lawyer for a response went unanswered, the obs...

3. [2021] NZEnvC 017 Director General of Conservation v Whangarei District Council [pdf, 5 MB]

   ...this has led to the urgent application before this Court. The matter was set down when no proceedings had actually been filed or any real information provided for the Court to understand what the issue was. [15] When we finally received the affidavits and background documentation these were unclear. The Court subsequently instructed that a list of issues was to be provided but that did not assist us greatly. It must be said that the early part of this hearing was dominated by...

4. Crosswell v Auckland City Council [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...proceedings having been joined as a second named third respondent. When Helen Heenen made an application to be removed from the proceedings, her then husband, the third respondent Grant Malone, assisted his wife to be removed and filed a sworn affidavit stating: “I was the builder of the property at 13a John Rymer Place, Kohimarama (the property). I confirm that my wife at the time Helen Heenen had no involvement in the design, planning or the construction of the property.�...

5. [2019] NZEmpC 181 A Labour Inspector v New Zealand Fusion International Ltd [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...MacRury’s schedule. I am not satisfied that Ms Min Wang worked the hours originally claimed. I find that she worked four hours a day during the period her wrist was sore, as set out in Ms MacRury’s revised calculations, detailed in a further affidavit referred to on the last day of hearing. Issue one – Declarations of breach appropriate? No receipt of minimum entitlements [22] I understood Ms Guan, who appeared on behalf of the company and on her own behalf as second defe...

6. Applying-be-a-Legal-Aid-Provider-Step-by-Step-Guide-Feb-2025 [pdf, 655 KB]

   ...Supporting documents – research notes on legal issue, transcript from witness cross- examination and sentencing submissions you co-drafted. Case example 2 – Trial Supporting documents – interlocutory application to exclude evidence and decision, affidavit you drafted, research notes and correspondence with your client, opening address that you delivered. Case example 3 – Trial Supporting documents – transcript from witness evidence in chief and re-examination and sentencing...

7. BMN v Stonewood Group Ltd [2024] NZHRRT 64 [pdf, 324 KB]

   (1) ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION AND OTHER IDENTIFYING DETAILS OF THE PLAINTIFF (2) ORDER PREVENTING SEARCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FILE WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL OR OF THE CHAIRPERSON Reference No. HRRT 056/2020 UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT 2020 BETWEEN BMN PLAINTIFF AND STONEWOOD GROUP LIMITED DEFENDANT AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Ms SJ Eyre, Chairperson Mr MJM Keefe QSM JP, Member Mr IR Nemani, Member REPRESENTATION Ms K Wilson an

8. Manahi v Kingi - Succession to Hinerongonui Manahi [2024] Chief Judge's MB 87 (2024 CJ 87) [pdf, 1011 KB]

   2024 Chief Judge's MB 87 Manahi v Kingi - Succession to Hinerongonui Manahi [2024] Chief Judge's MB 87 (2024 CJ 87) I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TE WAIARIKI In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Waiariki District AP-20230000026877 A20100010686 CJ 2010/79 WĀHANGA Under Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Succession to Hinerongonui Manahi I WAENGA I A Between RAUKAWA MANAHI

9. [2018] NZEnvC 090 Cabra Rural Developments Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 31 MB]

   ...Council but as yet unprocessed. In substance, therefore, the decisions version of the Unitary Plan (PAUP: decisions version) should be the same as that made operative by the Council in November 2016. [40] Mr Duguid, a Council officer, filed an affidavit confirming that the seal of the Council was affixed to the digital version of the plan, although the electronic citation given for that seal is not in the same position as the decisions version of the plan. Mr Duguid goes on to say...

10. Roberts - Te Touwai B19A1 (2015) 114 Taitokerau MB 131 (114 TTK 131) [pdf, 702 KB]

    114 Taitokerau MB 131 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20130001016 UNDER Section 326B, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Te Touwai B19A1 BETWEEN LAVINIA LISA ROBERTS Applicant Hearing: 23 October 2013 15 August 2014 2 February 2015 (Heard at Kaikohe) Judgment: 15 October 2015 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGES D J AMBLER AND M P ARMSTRONG 114