Search Results

1. Stanley & Anor as trustees of the Lucy Stanley Family Trust v North Shore City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 20 [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...claim from any of the liable parties. [42] Mr Pope’s costs assessment for the difference between the weatherboards and the like-for-like cladding of $44,336 is accepted and accordingly the estimated cost of repairs, exclusive of Council fees and other specialists’ costs, is established to the sum of $206,843. In relation to professional fees and supervision the only other dispute related to the supervision of the repair work. The claimants however conceded in closing s...

2. 27-Sept-2022-Redacted-SAR-for-publication-suggested-redactions2.pdf [pdf, 5.6 MB]

   RE LE AS ED B Y TH E MIN IS TE R OF JU ST IC E Supplementary Analysis Report: Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill Coversheet Purpose of Document Decision sought: Advising agencies: Proposing Ministers: Date finalised: Problem Definition This analysis was produced for the purpose of informing final Cabinet decisions on an omnibus Bill to enhance enforcement tools to disrupt and prosecute gang conflict and harm. Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Police

3. Supplementary Analysis Report Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill [pdf, 5.6 MB]

   RE LE AS ED B Y TH E MIN IS TE R OF JU ST IC E Supplementary Analysis Report: Criminal Activity Intervention Legislation Bill Coversheet Purpose of Document Decision sought: Advising agencies: Proposing Ministers: Date finalised: Problem Definition This analysis was produced for the purpose of informing final Cabinet decisions on an omnibus Bill to enhance enforcement tools to disrupt and prosecute gang conflict and harm. Ministry of Justice, New Zealand Police

4. LCRO 181/2023 HC v QG and VO (28 February 2025) [pdf, 413 KB]

   ...bring the profession into disrepute associated with the respondents locking him out of the firm’s premises and systems, the Committee’s relevant findings were that: (a) the lockout was a consequence of the expulsion; (b) its legality was a civil matter; (c) the arbitrator had ruled that the respondents had valid grounds to expel the applicant;8 (d) the lockout was neither unprofessional nor disrespectful nor discourteous. Complaint 7: Improper threats [74] In relation to th...

5. LCRO 240/2016 HM v NL (28 November 2018) [pdf, 255 KB]

   LCRO 240/2016 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN HM Applicant AND NL Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr HM has applied to review a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X], in which the Comm

6. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hart [2012] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...practitioners”. [d] Only three months after that finding there was a further finding of unsatisfactory conduct in the form of conduct unbecoming for overcharging. In respect of both of these 2010 matters Mr Hart was ordered to refund portions of his fees to the respective clients. In respect of both matters Mr Hart exercised his right to review by the Legal Complaints Review Officer (“LCRO”) and, again, in respect of both matters, the findings as to overcharging were uphe...

7. LCRO 95/2024 HC v RB (30 July 2025) [pdf, 428 KB]

   LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2025] NZLCRO 110 Ref: LCRO 95/2024 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN HC Applicant AND RB Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] The applicant, M

8. Auckland Standards Committee v Castles [2013] NZLCDT 53 [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...the basis of the time expended on their behalf, at particular hourly rates and that he went on to indicate that there was no real means of estimating costs. He says he explained the litigation risk. The W’s do not recall any discussion about fees at this meeting. [11] In the first of two letters to the W’s of 6 December, Mr Castles reported on progress to date in the Shoreham proceedings, noting the instructions were urgent and involved “urgent and extensive attendances”....

9. Boyd-Dunlop & Anor v CAC307 & Anor [2016] NZREADT 8 [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...licensee was not aware of, and gave the complainants no advice about, the restrictive covenant. [12] After purchasing the property and realising that they would not be able to use it as a wedding venue as they had intended, the complainants brought a civil claim against the vendors, the licensee's agency (CD Realty (HB Ltd (Bayleys))) and their own solicitors. The claim was ultimately discontinued, without prejudice to the complainants' ability to complain to the Real Estate...

10. Harris v Harris - Mangamuka West 3B2A and East H5B (2001) 28 Auckland MB 167 (28 AT 167) [pdf, 5 MB]

    ...--=-" r-·· '=·~·· ·· .. ~ ·O'-~:"'" ·-:-:-- I Minute Book: 28 AT 167· 118 to 31 Man;h 1998. As you will see, the last payment made by the Hams Bros. was received on 6 April 1989 aHhough wa did receive grazing fees from the firm of P leigh, In March 1992. Currently the interest rate Is set at 12.5%, and this is charged at 31 March each year based on the outstanding monthly balance during the year. If no payments are made during the year, the inte...