Search Results

1. Moananui v Cape Kidnappers Station Limited - Rangaika Native Reserve (2014) 31 Takitimu MB 179 (31 TKT 179) [pdf, 268 KB]

   31 Tākitimu MB 179 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TĀKITIMU DISTRICT A20100010762 UNDER Section 131, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Rangaika Native Reserve, Cape Kidnappers - application for a declaration of status of land BETWEEN HAWEA JOHN PATRICK MOANANUI Applicant AND CAPE KIDNAPPERS STATION LIMITED Respondent Judgment: 24 April 2014 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE W W ISAAC

2. [2019] NZEnvC 033 Liu v Auckland Council [pdf, 457 KB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA Decision No. [2019] NZEnvC 033 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal under s 325 of the Act BETWEEN DONGHUA LlU (ENV-2017 -AKL-000126) Appellant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge D A Kirkpatrick sitting alone pursuant to s279(1 )(e) of the Act Hearing: at Auckland on 3 December 2018 Appearances: F Pilditch for Appellant N Batts for Responden

3. D v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2022] CEIT-2020-0014 [pdf, 619 KB]

   1 IN THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL CEIT-0014-2020 IN THE MATTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL ACT 2019 BETWEEN WD Applicant AND IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 18, 19 and 25 March 2021 and 3, 4 and 18 June 2021 Further submissions 23 August 2022 Date: 21 December 2022 Representatives: Peter Woods and Kate Vilsbaek for the Applicant

4. INZ (Greathead) v Ortiz [2019] NZIACDT 59 (29 August 2019) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...breached cls 1, 3(c), 18(a) and 26(b) of the Code. SUBMISSIONS ON SANCTIONS [80] As the complaint has been upheld, the Tribunal may impose sanctions pursuant to s 51 of the Act. [81] A timetable is set out below. Any request for repayment of fees or the payment of costs or expenses or for compensation must be accompanied by a schedule particularising the amounts and basis of the claim. Timetable [82] The timetable for submissions will be as follows: (1) The Authority, the c...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Ms A [2022] NZLCDT 51 (22 December 2022) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...too, to the present case, is the High Court decision in Mr A v Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 211. There, the practitioner had been found guilty of misconduct by the Disciplinary Tribunal. He had threatened to issue proceedings to claim fees. He realised his threat by sending proceedings in draft. “The affidavit contained personal references to Mr G’s conduct and character which were irrelevant to the claim for fees.”12 The finding of misconduct was upheld. The practi...

6. [2022] NZEnvC 079 Woolworths New Zealand Limited [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...the proceedings, in the sum of $346,434.95. [22] The sum sought is apportioned as follows: (a) an award against the Council in the sum of $60,853.72; and (b) an award against Spreydon in the sum of $285,581.23. [23] The costs comprise of legal fees in the sum of $207,654.85 (including disbursements but excluding GST) and expert costs (including disbursements but excluding GST). Copies of the relevant invoices were attached to Woolworths’ application. [24] In addition, Woolwor...

7. LCRO 167/2022 LY v SN, MB, TD and KV (8 September 2023) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...action on the complaints against Mr SN, Ms MB and Ms KV. Background [2] In May 2021, Mr LY viewed a property at [Address], which was to be sold by auction. He made contact with [Law firm A] Limited ([Law firm A]) and asked for an estimate of the fees which the firm would charge to act on the purchase of the property, which he accepted. [3] Subsequently, on 2 June, he emailed documents to the firm and asked that they be reviewed and for the firm to provide advice on any issues ari...

8. LCRO 148/2023 ZJ v PE (16 June 2025) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...her alleged disclosure of it to other people. [18] The outcomes the applicant sought from the review were findings of breach of rr 10.9 and 13.1 of the Rules and of r 308 of the Family Court Rules 2002, a fine, a refund of his review application fee, an apology and compensation for serious harm and hardship. What is the nature and scope of the review? [19] The High Court has said about the nature and scope of a review under the Act:4 … the power of review conferred upon Review...

9. D (D G Family Trust) v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2019] CEIT-2019-0037 [pdf, 605 KB]

   ...that it comes at a cost, even if they are successful. The cost of losing forces the parties to that litigation to carefully evaluate the merits of their respective cases and seriously contemplate compromising their 5 Andrew Beck- Principles of Civil Procedure (online ed. Thomson Reuters), at [13.13.3.2]. 6 Principles of Civil Procedure at [13.13.3.1]. 7 Moore v McNabb (2005) 18 PRNZ 127 (CA) at [56]. 8 Transmissions & Diesels Ltd v Matheson [2002] 1 ERNZ 22 (CA) at [28]. 9 Vict...

10. LCRO 11/2024 GD and CZ v BO (30 May 2025) [pdf, 429 KB]

    LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2025] NZLCRO 070 Ref: LCRO 11/2024 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 GD and CZ Applicants AND BO Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr GD (f