Search Results

1. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Slater (Adjournment) [2014] NZHRRT 53 [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...2014. Mr Slater’s own written statements of evidence were required to be filed by 11 July 2014. [3] Because Mr Slater did not provide the particulars as ordered, a second teleconference was convened on 7 August 2014. Mr Slater agreed to file the requested particulars by 19 August 2014. The timetable was reset. The Director’s date for filing of evidence was 26 September 2014 and Mr Slater’s deadline was 17 October 2014. See the Minute issued on 7 August 2014. [4] While the Di...

2. DKD v Smith [2019] NZIACDT 82 (12 December 2019) [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...misleading behaviour; and (e) a breach of the code of conduct. 5 [22] The Tribunal hears those complaints which the Registrar decides to refer to the Tribunal.3 [23] The Tribunal must hear complaints on the papers, but may in its discretion request further information or any person to appear before the Tribunal.4 It has been established to deal relatively summarily with complaints referred to it.5 [24] After hearing a complaint, the Tribunal may dismiss it, uphold it but tak...

3. [2022] NZEnvC 031 Thames-Coromandel District Council v Hopwood [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...cannot continue. Accordingly, it considers that Court intervention is now required. [7] I convened a preliminary judicial telephone conference OTC) on 1 7 December 2021, directing the matter to mediation. By memorandum of 20 January 2022, counsel requested that mediation be delayed, allowing parties to meet in person and discuss potential resolution of the application. Agreement to Orders [8] On 8 February 2022, Mr Speir filed a joint memorandum advising that the parties had rea...

4. EG & GE v QD [2021] NZDT 1608 (10 August 2021) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...railing side of the fence. The parties agreed that the palings should be on GE and EG’s side of the fence because the fence will be most visible from their property. Referee: L Trevelyan Date: 10 August 2021 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a...

5. [2021] NZACDT 15 - YC v Han (29 June 2021) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...11. 2 YC v Wan [2021] NZIACDT 10. 3 [8] On 7 November 2019, Mr Gu, another licensed adviser by then instructed by the complainant, made a complaint against Ms Han and Mr Wan to the Authority. [9] On 27 November 2019, Mr Gu lodged a s 61 request with Immigration New Zealand, blaming the complainant’s unlawful status on Ms Han who had failed to respond to Immigration New Zealand’s letter of 31 July 2019. This request was successful and on 7 January 2020, Immigration New...

6. [2024] NZEnvC 130 Yzendoorn v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...denied that it had unnecessarily added to the cost of the proceeding. Mr Muldowney submitted that the Council: (a) agreed to the stay of the abatement notice and complied with all of the Court’s directions on time and agreed to the appellants’ request for an extension to file its reply evidence; (b) raised issues that had expert support and were confined to legal, planning, district plan interpretation and plan administration issues. The Council’s evidence was necessary t...

7. LCRO 96/2017 AA v BB (29 November 2019) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...essence”. [6] Until 15 January 2015, Mr DD, a lawyer employed by the firm who was assisted by Ms EE, a legal executive, acted for [VOI]. Mr AA became involved that day. [7] Initially Mr FF of Mr BB’s firm, later Ms CC, acted for the OA. Ms CC requested settlement in person at the firm’s offices proposing payment by bank cheque rather than electronic payment for a remote settlement. [8] On 16 January 2015, upon learning that [VOI]’s mortgagee’s lawyer was unable to at...

8. LCRO 034/2017 TC v DM (30 April 2019) [pdf, 287 KB]

   LCRO 34/2017 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING [Area] Standards Committee[X] BETWEEN TC Applicant AND DM Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Ms TC has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee (the Committee) which, following inquiry into comp

9. Māori Trustee v Ihaia - Omapere Taraire E & Rangihamama X3A (Aggregated) (2014) 88 Taitokerau MB 9 (88 TTK 9) [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...was previously lost. At the request of the parties the application was adjourned to allow the parties to discuss that proposal. [12] The application was then set down for hearing on 24 March 2014. The Māori Trustee and the chair of the Trust requested that the matter be adjourned as they had not had the opportunity to consult with the owners as to the matters raised on 9 December 2013. The parties also indicated that a general meeting was scheduled for 3 May 2014. That adjournmen...

10. Tito v Andrews - Mangakahia 2B2 No 2A1A (2018) 178 Taitokerau MB 193 (178 TTK 193) [pdf, 285 KB]

    ...concluded the trust should remain because the land was leased and there was a disparity in the shareholding. He says “the lease expired in 2000, at which time I may lease the farm. This was our family’s agreement in 1995 before the trust was formed.” [28] In his view matters had been diverted away from accountability for financial issues and breaches of trust into questions of replacing trustees and who those trustees should be. [29] Mr Tito says that the general consens...