Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Holmes [2011] NZLCDT 31 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...response to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Pidgeon said in his opinion the offending in this matter was less serious than that of W in the recent High Court case1 which related to breach of an undertaking. In that case the NZLS had successfully appealed a decision of the Tribunal which had determined that the conduct had not reached the threshold of misconduct. The High Court found W was guilty of negligence or incompetence in his professional capacity that has been of such degre...

2. CAC20004 v Li & Ors [2015] NZREADT 6 [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...particular defendants. The fines are to be paid within three months of the date of this decision to the Registrar of the Authority at Wellington. 8 [40] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Ms N Dangen Member ______________________________ Ms...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 43 Booth v Big Kahuna Holdings Limited Interlocutory [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...where a litigant is impecunious, although resident in New Zealand. This reinforces the desirability of a broader approach, and consideration of a range of factors in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, and is consistent with the Court of Appeal’s observation in McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd that:7 [15] The rule [for security for costs] itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 8 Nelson v Katavich [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...for no other purposes: (b) if copies of any documents have been made available by any party,— (i) those copies must be returned to that party within 28 clear days after the conclusion of the proceedings or after the conclusion of any related appeal, whichever is the later; and (ii) copies of any of those copies must not be retained by the party to whom those copies were made available: (c) the information contained in any document so disclosed but not used in evidence in the pro...

5. Shropshire v March LCRO 64 / 2010 (28 October 2010) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...hope or expectation that the outcome of better communications would have opened up to discussions on matters, including child support. [4] When the former wife attended on the Practitioner in respect of the CSA assessment the opportunity to appeal it was already passed. Neither the Practitioner nor her client knew that the assessment had been made on the basis of insufficient information having been provided by the Applicant to the IRD, and that it was therefore erroneous. The...

6. Newbury v Windsor LCRO 58 / 2009 (20 July 2009) [pdf, 28 KB]

   ...instructions or any terms of retainer or rate of remuneration at that time. [5] On 20 April 2008 Mr Newbury provided Mr Windsor with further instructions in respect of Mr W. He was instructed to assist in the preparation of submissions on leave to appeal and to undertake research in the matter. These were supplemented by an email of 24 April in which Mr Newbury noted that he was attaching submissions which could be “remerged”. Some time after 20 April 2008 Mr Newbury emailed...

7. VG v AB LCRO 263 / 2011 (10 May 2013) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...revision, where the bill had already been subject to revision. Section 151 of the Act provided that the court shall not make an order for the reference of a bill for revision except in special circumstances (emphasis added). [17] The Court of Appeal rejected the trial judge’s finding that a serious risk of injustice was required. Although the three members of the court produced three different tests, they do provide some guidance in ascertaining the meaning of ‘special circumst...

8. Brichris Holdings Limited v Irmac Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2012] NZWHT Auckland 7 [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...removal application by the architect but recorded that the claimant, the party opposing removal, needed to establish causation. At adjudication the claim against the architect failed but the Tribunal declined his application for costs. On appeal the District Court held that the Tribunal was wrong to conclude that the threshold for an award of costs under s91(1)(b) had not been met because the claimant failed to offer the necessary evidence of causation at hearing.17 Co...

9. Auckland District Law Society v J [2010] NZLCDT 24 [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...His Honour Lang J on 4 June 2008. By that time counsel for the developer, having strongly resisted the claim for two years was granted leave to withdraw and the matter proceeded on an undefended or default basis. Thus on 4 June 2008 when Mr C appealed for the contractor before His Honour Lang J the judgment was given by default in the sum of $298,004.63 together with interest of $197,857.12, a total of $495,861.75 (clearly significantly in excess of the original amount in dispute)...

10. BORA Social Assistance (Living Alone Payments) Amendment Bill [pdf, 355 KB]

    ...olds may also qualify for some benefits. 8. Clause 14 of the Bill provides for a savings provision for persons receiving the LAP under s 13 of the principal Act immediately before the commencement of this section on the basis of the Social Security Appeal Authority’s decision [2009] NZSSAA 38 (19 June 2009) if, and as long as, there is no change in the person’s circumstances affecting the person’s entitlement to the LAP. The recipient referred to by MSD was the appellant in the SS...