Search Results

1. Mansfield v Pomana - Matawihi 1A & 2 Blocks (2013) 24 Takitimu MB 287 (24 TKT 287) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...paragraphs [6] to [13] for that information. The Law [8] It is trite law that trustees must adhere to their duties and any claim as to a lack of knowledge of such responsibilities is no defence against a claim of breach of duty. The Court of Appeal in a recent judgment Rameka v Hall underscored the relevant duties including the principal obligation of being familiar with the terms of the trust:2 [28] The general responsibilities of responsible trustees are set out in s 223 of th...

2. Wellington Standards Committee v Hall [2012] NZLCDT 7 [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...is of course not a criminal case, the Tribunal considers it is an application to strike out a case on the basis that it discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action. The principles to be applied in such a case are summarised by the Court of Appeal in Attorney-General v Prince & Gardner1 and endorsed by the Supreme Court in Couch v Attorney-General.2 Significantly an application to strike on this basis must proceed only in those cases where the

3. [2015] NZEmpC 105 Scarborough v Micron Security Products Limited costs [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...together, and give rise to a number of difficulties in practice as the cases reveal. [35] I pause to note that the approach to costs adopted in this Court can be contrasted with the one that applies in the United Kingdom. There the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993 provide for a costs-free starting point, reflecting a recognition of the desirability of encouraging access to the Appeal Authority (the EAT) for public policy reasons. The presumption that each party will bear thei...

4. Brebner & Anor v Collie & Anor [2013] NZWHT Auckland 23 [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...sale and purchase. Following a hearing I issued a determination finding that although the house had weathertightness defects and required significant repair, Ms Collie was not liable to the claimants in tort or in contract. [2] The claimants appealed to the High Court. Justice Peters upheld all the factual findings made by the Tribunal and the finding regarding the claim in tort. She also upheld a finding that had the claim in tort been established, the degree of contributor...

5. LCRO 159/2017 YB v WD [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...scope of review [25] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:3 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that p...

6. LCRO 196/2016 GY v SO (15 September 2017) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...scope of review [24] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:22 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

7. UW v EP LCRO 146/2011 (31 March 2015) [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his own judgment for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. [16] In Deliu v Hong it was noted that a review is:1 … much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching hi...

8. WC VB UA v WC VB UA LCRO 189/2012, 184/2014, 180/2012 & 190/2012 (10 September 2015) [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...of herself and Mr and Mrs VB, seeking compensation from Mr WC in respect of the loss they had suffered “as a result of [Mr WC] breaching [his] duty of care owed to each of [them]”. In the letter Ms UA referred in some detail to the Court of Appeal judgment in Gartside v Sheffield, Young and Ellis.2 1 WC submissions to LCRO (24 August 2015) at [6]. On the basis of this judgment, Ms VB and Ms UA alleged that Mr WC owed them a duty...

9. AT v ZH & Ors LCRO 127/2013 (26 March 2014) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...complaints (the first decision). [7] No review was sought of the first decision, and [Firm A] obtained judgment against Mr AT by default [date] in the District Court proceeding. Mr AT then successfully applied to set that judgment aside, and [Firm A] appealed that decision to the High Court. [8] The High Court dismissed the appeal in its judgment [date], said that the issue of quantum of the fees had not been determined, and left it open to [Firm A] to consider what recovery st...

10. BK v YM LCRO 177 / 2010 (14 April 2011) [pdf, 129 KB]

    ...the Respondent and resolved pursuant to s138(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 to take no further action on the complaint. Application for review [21] In his letter accompanying the application for review, the Applicant sought an “appeal” of the Standards Committee decision. [22] He identified in a somewhat more definitive manner the nature of his complaint. 1. That the Respondent acted for the Applicant and Ms YL in a transaction where the Respondent was also ac...