Search Results

1. Johanson v Williams - Tokaipuritia Williams [2019] Chief Judge's MB 995 (2019 CJ 995) [pdf, 538 KB]

   ...the whānau trust for the benefit of all his descendants. Court Hearing [10] At the hearing held on 13 June 2019,2 the applicant advised that her main concern was that the will of her father, Tokaipuritia Williams, indicated that he wanted to form a whānau trust to succeed to the house and occupation order on Matauri 2F2B. She wants to see that house kept as a family home. [11] Other whānau members considered that it was up to the Court to ensure that when the transfers of...

2. Dorbu v The Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal Anor [2011] NZLCDT CIV 2009 404 7381 [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...of the property by mortgagee sale. [46] In his amended statement of claim the applicant pleads: 22. In the course of the hearing before it, the Tribunal wrongfully ordered the applicant not to call a Mr Graeme Gordin, a senior staff at Land Information New Zealand, who in July 2002, informed the applicant that it was proper for him as barrister sole to certify correct a memorandum of transfer of mortgage from the Bank of New Zealand to a private financier, Mr Shou Lung Chiao, even...

3. Mills v Capital and Coast District Health Board [2019] NZHRRT 47 [PDF, 731 KB]

   ...1 [This decision is to be cited as Mills v Capital and Coast District Health Board [2019] NZHRRT 47.] IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2019] NZHRRT 47 2 INDEX INTRODUCTION [1] Chronology [2] The Facebook information [11] The telephone call of 15 November 2017 [19] Disclosures in the ERA statement of reply [25] PRELIMINARY MATTERS [33] The Hearing [33] Application of the Health Information Privacy Code [35] Application for permanent name suppre

4. P v H LCRO 02 / 2009 (20 March 2009) [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...of Upper Hutt Applicant AND LAWYER H of Lower Hutt Respondent DECISION Background [1] This matter concerns the conduct of Lawyer H in respect of relationship property proceedings between Complainant P and her former husband. Lawyer H acted for the complainant’s husband in those proceedings. The proceedings were ultimately settled. As a consequence of agreement between the parties Judge Ullrich made consent orders on 2 July 2008. Those consent or...

5. [2016] NZEmpC 110 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...the Court should not exercise its discretion to make such an order before first determining the application for disclosure against the plaintiff for his personal tax records and permitting that disclosure to take place; (c) PRI would have to request records which it does not have and which disclose the private tax affairs of other employees; (d) it is not in the interests of justice for the Court to make such an order against PRI. [7] Mr Matsuoka has already agreed to and h...

6. LCRO 156/2016 KZ v XL on behalf of [Company A] (18 January 2019) [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...Council was “trying to trap [Company A] into transferring and [would then raise a limitation argument in the WHT]”. He said that he would have “adopted exactly the same approach as Ms KZ did”. Further comment by Ms KZ [41] The Committee requested further submissions from Ms KZ, which she provided in her letter dated 14 March 2016. In that letter Ms KZ said the following: (a) the Council’s litigation strategy of aggressively defending matters including taking technical...

7. Complaints Assessment Committee 413 v Marr [2019] NZREADT 008 [pdf, 334 KB]

   ...Guttenbeil, Ms Marr told her that she should “not fret”, as her solicitor might be able to “stop this” as “you signed the Sale & Purchase agreement for my children on 2 August remember.” [33] Ms Guttenbeil said that at Ms Marr’s request, she sent Mr Phillips a text message on 27 August, which she knew to be untrue, saying that she remembered signing a sale and purchase agreement for $435,000. She said that although Ms Marr asked her to do so, she did not mention...

8. LCRO 68/2018 TY v HG (29 November 2019) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...counsel and experts will see it. [8] On terms involving the signing of confidentiality undertakings, [EEE] and KL (for their respective clients) gave such access to the legal representatives of other parties including Mr HG. [9] The confidential information included “counterfactual” material that conveyed a description of [Company B]’s view of the likely range of consequences of the rejection of the application. [10] That material included descriptions of structural options...

9. LCRO 15/2023 and LCRO 21/2023 OE v CN (13 February 2025) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...be taken to implement Mr OE’s instructions? Rules 7 and 7.1 of the RCCC. (c) Were there any material and unexpected delays in the matter? If so, did Mr CN inform Mr OE of these delays? Rule 3.3 of the RCCC. (d) Did Mr CN promptly respond to requests for information or other inquiries from Mr OE? Rules 7.2 and 3.2 of the RCCC. (e) Did Mr CN at all times treat Mr OE with respect and courtesy? Rule 3.1 of the RCCC. [25] It then addressed issues (a), (c) and (e). Failure to act...

10. Deputy Registrar - Whenuanui 2B (2020) 222 Taitokerau MB 236 (222 TTK 236) [pdf, 315 KB]

    ...relief also relates to relief in favour of the Māori owners. They do not wish to prosecute the matter in the High Court but in this Court. There can be no prejudice, or inconvenience, to the Kidds in that regard given that those additional forms of relief do not benefit them. The Registrar-General of Land has also accepted that the Maori owners are eligible for compensation and so an order to that effect appears unnecessary. [78] Perhaps the greatest concern is the potential...