Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. 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)...

5. 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...

6. Livingstone v Animal Health Board — Lake Rotoaira Forest Lands (2009) 245 Aotea MB 124 (245 AOT 124) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...could not be brushed over lightly. For example see F Hammond Land Holdings Ltd v Elders Pasture Ltd (1989) 2 PRNZ 232 and Shivas v BTR Nylex Holding NZ Ltd [1997] 1 NZLR 318. [13] In Roseneath Holdings Ltd v Grieve [2004] 2 NZLR 168, the Court of Appeal summarised the essential purpose of an interim injunction, at 176: “The object of an interim injunction is to protect the plaintiff from harm occasioned by any breach of rights, that is the subject of current litigation, for wh...

7. [2016] NZEmpC 71 Marx v Southern Cross Campus Board of Trustees [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...written to the employer advising that the employee was considered to have a personal 2 Creedy v Commissioner of Police [2006] ERNZ 517 (EmpC) at [35]-[37] (This issue is not one affected by subsequent appeals in that case). 3 At [32]. grievance for unjustified disadvantage. The Court held that this was insufficient. 4 The 2 August correspondence forwarded to the defendant on Mrs Marx’s behalf, and by Mrs Marx herself...

8. SW v UH LCRO 170/2014 (5 February 2016) [pdf, 48 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:3 … 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 his...

9. YM v RP LCRO 238/2012 (31 March 2016) [pdf, 54 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. [19] 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 his...

10. DH v EJ LCRO 207/2014 (13 April 2015) [pdf, 62 KB]

    ...evidence. The statutory power of review is much 3 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act, s 12(b). 4 Section 12(c). 5 Application for review (24 September 2014) at [16]. 6 At [17]. 4 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. Review Hearing [16] Mr DH attended a review hearing in Auckland o...