Search Results

1. Loach v Bidois - Matarikoriko No 7B2A (2015) 336 Aotea MB 182 (336 AOT 182) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...for confirmation. Until the process is completed and the person who is to 12 Muraahi v Phillips - Rangitoto Tuhua 551B and 55B1A2 (Manu Ariki Marae) [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 528 (2013 APPEAL 528) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2011/0374/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_maori+land+court+rules_resel_25_a&p=1&id=DLM4073063 336 Aotea MB 192 be offered the right of first...

2. CAC 20007 v Marshall [2013] NZREADT 101 [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...identified by the auditor as very likely not genuine. This gives Mr Marshall the benefit of the doubt regarding the remaining $6,708.09 of suspected expenses. [58] 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 ______________________________...

3. Joint Protocol Ministry of Justice and Department of Child, Youth and Family [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...Court that have been determined and where a genuine or proper interest has been established. (ii) Part 3 subpart 2 of the High Court Rules generally governs access to information concerning family related proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal that have been determined and where a genuine or proper interest has been established. (iii) Rule 8 of the Family Proceedings Rules governs access to information concerning proceedings under the Family Proceedings Act 1980 and Care of...

4. Ministerial briefing: Implementation of the Investment Approach to Justice [pdf, 909 KB]

   ...fixed in legislation in the form of standard benefit payments. To understand the fiscal costs of crime requires understanding the way in which different crimes flow through to the activities in the Justice sector such as investigation, prosecution, appeal, and sentence management, and the costs of these activities. 50. Although this exercise may sound straightforward, it is fairly complex in practice. There are many decision points through the Justice pipeline, and the decisions tak...

5. GU v TI LCRO 258 / 2010 (19 December 2011) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...criticise his or her conduct. It is the means by which the Committee can most strongly express its condemnation of what a practitioner has done, backed up, if it sees fit, with a fine and remedial orders. [86] I am aware that this decision is under appeal, but the fact that section 156(1)(i) of the Act contains the two different word does indicate that it was not intended that these words should be considered to be synonymous. I have applied the comments of the Court in that decis...

6. Redruth v Dereham LCRO 154 / 2010 (10 November 2010) [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...the legal liability against all three lawyers. In respect of a claim against F, the Practitioner opined that a claim lay in tort, having identified relevant principles in the case of Connell v Odlun [1993] 2NZLR 257, a case where the Court of Appeal had concluded that a lawyer could owe a duty of care to a person not his client. [6] In later April the Applicant sought a further opinion, this time from Mr L of ME. This opinion supported the grounds for a claim against F in tort, whic...

7. Z v D LCRO 4 / 2008 (23 April 2009) [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...(such as an application for costs revision) need to have been taken before a right can be said to exist or be accrued. “Accrued right” is the phraseology used in s 20(e) of the former Acts Interpretation Act 1924. In this regard the Court of Appeal has stated that there has been no substantive change in meaning as between those two Acts: Claydon v A-G [2004] NZAR 16 (CA) per McGrath J at para 85. [21] It is my view that the applicants who had received a bill of costs but as at...

8. BW v NA LCRO 266/2012 and 269/2012 (9 June 2014) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...broad powers to conduct his/her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an 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. Review issues arising from Mr BW’s Application [33] Simply put, Mr BW...

9. CS v HT and LM LCRO 25/2013, 50/2013 and 51/2013 (24 June 2014) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...the prospects of success; and  neither Mr HT nor Mrs LM had advised him of the potential for a claim under the Family Protection Act. [35] He also alleged that Mr HT was seemingly uninterested in providing advice with regard to any potential appeal. This complaint is of course a new matter which was not addressed by the Standards Committee and therefore cannot be included in this review. This would include any complaint that neither Mr HT nor Mrs LM had advised him of the opt...

10. LS v TD LCRO 298/2012 (10 December 2014) [pdf, 82 KB]

    ...considers it cannot take the matter further. The LCRO has looked at the matter and has made a finding. Accordingly, Ms LS is now in the same position as if the matter had been the subject of specific consideration at the Committee level and then appealed the decision to the LCRO. Review [15] A review hearing was held in [city] on 13 November 2014. Mrs LS was represented by Mr QO and Mr TD by Mr JW. 4 Above n 2 at [8]. 5 Above n...