Search Results

1. CAC20003 v Wright [2015] NZREADT 25 [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...course, but because the defendant’s concerning conduct is not real estate work, we have no jurisdiction to find, or penalise for, unsatisfactory conduct. [83] 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 ______________________________ Mr J Gaukrodger Member ____________________________...

2. The Māori Trustee - Poike 8E (2015) 101 Waikato Maniapoto MB 286 (101 WMN 286) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...debt is satisfied; t) These interests, rights and duties are substantive interests, rights and duties that crystallised on commencement of the legislation in 1987 and are preserved by s 17(1)(b) of the Interpretation Act 1999; u) The Court of Appeal discussed s 18 of the Interpretation Act 1999 in Foodstuffs (Auckland) Limited v Commerce Commission, 18 and qualified its application to where there are existing (vested) interests, rights and duties at the time of the repeal, com...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 74 NZ Aluminimum Smelters Ltd v Weller Ors [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...intention which they clearly could not have had. The natural and ordinary meaning should not lead to a conclusion that flouts business common sense. [32] I acknowledge Mr Jagose’s submission that this summary was adopted by the Court of Appeal in the context of construing an employment agreement.8 5 At [19]. That must 6At [23]. 7At [61] citing Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society (No 1) [1998]...

4. CAC 20004 V Lindsay [2013] NZREADT 113 [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...$2,000 could be appropriate. We ask the Registrar to arrange a telephone conference with our Chairperson and the parties to discuss procedure towards penalty. [88] 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 ______________________________...

5. Family legal aid pre-proceedings steps - December 2007 [pdf, 632 KB]

   ...application for legal aid (and amendment to grant if expecting to exceed the guideline hours for this step) • Reporting to and invoicing for Legal Aid Repeat within 4 months up to 4 hours Repeat within 18 months up to 4.5 hours Step 8: Appeal from Review Tribunal Step Grant Guideline Hours Activities normally covered by Guideline Hours New instructions up to 3 hours For • Receiving initial instructions and identifying legal and factual issues • Preparing application...

6. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Simes [2012] NZLCDT 4 [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...19 This principle has been discussed and accepted in a number of cases arising in the context of legal fee reviews; D’Allessandro $ D’Angelo v Bouloudas and Another [1992] 10 WAR 191; Sharatt v London Central Bus Co. Ltd and other appeals [2003] 4 All ER 590 20 Ibid, at 218lines 40 - 50 and 219 lines 50 - 53 21 Supra, at 211 lines 11 - 32 22 See Section 241 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, read in conjunction with Sections 11 and 14 17 present in the court o...

7. SV v WT LCRO 21/2013 (26 August 2014) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct 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 Hearing [19] The parties attended a review hearing on 15 July 20...

8. DA v EB LCRO 7/2013 (26 August 2014) [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct 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 hearing [43] Ms DA attended a review hearing in Auckland on 11 Ma...

9. Cameron & Ors as Trustees of the Normac Trust v Stevenson [2010] NZWHT Auckland 39 [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...there has been some debate as to whether general damages should be awarded on a per dwelling or a per owner basis Ellis J concluded in Findlay & Anor as Trustees of the Lee Findlay Family Trust v Auckland City Council13 that the Byron Avenue appeal confirmed the availability of general damages and leaky building cases in general was in the vicinity of $25,000 per dwelling for owner occupiers. White J in Coughlan & Ors v Abernathy & Ors14 confirmed that standard rates...

10. Philpott v Zderich [2011] NZWHT Auckland 16 [pdf, 176 KB]

    ...directors are in no better position than any other principal, the learned author continued:6 Subsequently, the reasoning of these two decisions of the House of Lords on the position of directors has been followed by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor. In this case, a strike-out action relating to liability for a leaky building, the Court rejected the notion adopted by Cooke P and Hardie Boys