Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 97 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...defaulting party’s obligation clearly defined. That can especially apply where a party’s obligation is to serve particular documents but not file them. [7] In support of her application for ‘unless’ orders and relying on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in SM v LFDB, 2 the plaintiff contends that such orders may be made where there has been a repeated failure to comply with a party’s disclosure obligations and not merely with a specific court order such as one of those ma...

2. Bedford v Luton LCRO 72 / 2009 (29 June 2009) - Penalty and Costs [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...it that factor in itself is enough to warrant a disciplinary response: Bentley v Gaisford [1997] QB 627 (CA) at p 648 per Henry LJ); Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Bhanabhai [2007] 2 NZLR 478 para [50] per William Young P. The English Court of Appeal has stated that failure to implement a solicitor's undertaking is prima facie to be regarded as a professional breach: Udall v Capri Lighting Ltd [1987] 3 All ER 262 at 269. The fact that there has been no “dishonourable conduc...

3. Q v I LCRO 41 / 2009 (2 June 2009) [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...therefore lead to detriment to the client. Understandably Mr Q was of the view that Lawyer I held such information. Lawyer I took the opposite view. The question of what kind of information might be relevant was 4 considered by the Court of Appeal in Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co v Tower Corporation [1998] 3 NZLR 641. In that case the Court rejected an argument at general information about the manner in which business was conducted was relevant to the new matter....

4. O'Connor v Macdee McLennon Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 14 [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...originally claimed were accepted as being in excess of the $25,000.00 per unit that usually applied. [29] Generally an award of $25,000 per unit for occupiers is made based on the decisions of William Young P and Baragwanath J in the Court of Appeal in O’Hagan v Body Corporate 189855 3, Mok v Bolderson, 4 and Cao v Auckland City Council 5. Accordingly, the appropriate joint award to the claimants for general damages is $25,000 for anxiety, disappointment, physical inconvenien...

5. Body Corporate 206697 & Unit Owners of Eden 2 v QBE Insurance (International) Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 44 [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...High Court scale. [19] In the circumstances of this case, therefore, I consider that a contribution towards the actual costs should be awarded. I do not however consider that there are grounds for ordering indemnity costs. The Court of Appeal in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation10 recognised the categories in respect of which the discretion may be exercised was not closed, but note the following circumstances in which indemnity costs have been ordered:...

6. TP v RO LCRO 174/2012 (7 November 2014) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an 4 investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Events before the review hearing [20] A review hearing was scheduled to o...

7. Ching v Regmi & Ors [2014] NZWHT Auckland 4 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...concerning the liability of a builder, Dicks v Hobson Swan Construction Limited3 the High Court apportioned 80 per cent of liability to the building parties and 20 per cent to the Council. This apportionment reflects that made by the Court of Appeal in Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson.4 In Todd on Torts the author notes the generally accepted allocation of responsibility between builder and Council as 80 percent/20 percent. I accept Ms Harrison’s submission and determin...

8. BORA Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...[123]. 7 Ibid. 8 Cooper v Attorney-General [1996] 3 NZLR 480, 484. a decision to recommend an Order without proper consultation, pass a resolution to disallow that Order.9 31. On balance, we therefore consider that the restriction on appeal rights in judicial review proceedings in cl 22 means the right to judicial review is impaired no more than reasonably necessary to achieve the objective. Is the limit in due proportion to the importance of the objective? 32. In consider...

9. Auckland District Law Society v Parlane [2010] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...the profession in terms of its reputation and integrity. [25] Mr Parlane has a previous disciplinary record. Mr Parlane attempted to explain it away on the basis that the earlier disciplinary decisions were wrong, or that he only withdrew his appeals relating to findings against him in respect of 1 Section 3 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 6 those charges because he did not want to prolong matters. The matters occurred some...

10. BORA Harmful Digital Communications Bill [pdf, 303 KB]

    ...host to refrain from hosting or retaining potentially offensive communications, given the risk of liability, and there is also scope for users to agree upon terms of hosting, for example by indemnifying the content host; and 22.3 There is Court of Appeal authority that a statutory immunity from liability does not engage Bill of Rights obligations because it does not constitute performance of a public function, power or duty conferred or imposed on that person or body by or pursuant to...