Search Results

1. The Maori Trustee v Brightwell - Kaipakopako 2C2 (2016) 354 Aotea MB 226 (354 AOT 226) [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...the land by the Māori Trustee, its status and future utilisation. [10] Ms Brightwell also submits that the minutes of the meeting of owners held on 20 May 2015 contain discrepancies and adds that the Māori Trustee has not provided information requested regarding the distributable income for the trust. Ms Brightwell claims that the Māori Trustee has not provided audited accounts for the year ended 31 March 2015 and that the trust is not GST registered.

2. [2017] NZEmpC 78 Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections v CANZ Inc [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...Restructuring in 2015 [8] Some context is required before considering these issues. In early 2015 the Chief Executive began a restructuring project. A consultation document about that restructuring called “Lifting Productivity & Performance in New Zealand’s Prisons” was released for comment on 9 April 2015. Amongst other changes this proposal affected case management work but did not reduce the overall number of positions for Case Managers. The proposal was explain

3. LCRO 10/2020 EJ v HP (10 June 2020) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...and did not consider his daughters were getting the benefit of the money he had given away. [19] By July 2017 Mr EJ had instructed new lawyers concerning the “inequality of relationship property to be vested in trust for his daughters”. They requested the firm’s entire file. They had questions about Ms TS’s trust, referred to Mr EJ’s “naiveté”, and described themselves as mystified by the “gifting and settlement process that was allowed to occur”. Mr EJ’s new...

4. MM v Registrar of Immigration Advisers [2020] NZIACDT 3 (23 January 2020) [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...complaint does not disclose any of the grounds of complaint listed in section 44(2), and reject it accordingly; (c) determine that the complaint discloses only a trivial or inconsequential matter, and for this reason need not be pursued; or (d) request the complainant to consider whether or not the matter could be best settled by the complainant using the immigration adviser’s own complaints procedure. [42] In accordance with s 54 of the Act, a complainant may appeal to the Trib...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v O'Boyle [2021] NZLCDT 27 (29 October 2021) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...to maintain the objectivity that the public should expect from a reasonably competent lawyer.5 [15] The misconduct was wrong. It reflected badly on Ms O’Boyle and on the legal profession. Although Ms O’Boyle has not had prior charges, we formed the view that her conduct, both with respect to her client and the Standards Committee involved several adverse events over a considerable period of time, and Ms O’Boyle’s manner of dealing with them reveals features of her personal...

6. [2024] NZREADT 13 - BU v REAA & HI (02 May 2024) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...[23] The licensee provided a second statement (10 October 2022) to the Authority. He recorded that it was best practice within the agency to remove all web advertising once the property became unconditional. In regard to the two units in question, a request to remove the advertisements was made to the third-party advertising providers within two working days of the sales becoming unconditional and they were removed within five working days. [24] The vendor provided the Authority wi...

7. McConnor v New Zealand Law Society [2024] NZLCDT 13 (16 May 2024) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...standards.” He denied, in our hearing, having sworn a misleading affidavit deliberately although that was the earlier Tribunal’s finding. He put his extensive and varied wrongdoing down to the comment, “I was an inexperienced fool.” We formed the view that he would prefer to close his mind to this uncomfortable material, and for the rest of the world to do likewise. In his last affidavit (filed only three days before the hearing) he indicated he wanted his name suppressed...

8. Hart v Auckland Standards Committee 1 of the New Zealand Law Society CIV 2012 404 5076 5528 [pdf, 515 KB]

   ...the Tribunal and should have been dealt with by the Standards Committee. (3) The Tribunal should not have found the first charge proved in circumstances where the complainant did not appear at the hearing. (4) The Tribunal erred in failing to request that Mr Daniel Gardiner appear before it in connection with charge one, and in failing to request that Mr Alistair Haskett appear before it in connection with charge four. Both were legal practitioners who had sworn affidavits for...

9. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 TGKL case law 2 Paku Bay [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...would be properly presented by the appellant and by the second respondents respectively. [4] The second respondents, Tairua Marine Ltd and Pacific Paradise Ltd (jointly the “applicants”), are the members of an unincorporated joint venture which was formed for the purpose of applying for the requisite consents needed for the development and operation of the marina. They oppose the appeal, and say that the Environment Court made no error of law in upholding the grant of the various consents...

10. [2021] NZEnvC 184 Tasman District Council v Awaroa Aerodrome Ltd [pdf, 1 MB]

    ...COURT A: Application for enforcement orders in respect of use of the Airstrip by single engine, frn:ed wing aircraft declined. B: Application for enforcement orders in respect of use of the Airstrip by helicopters to be granted, subject to the form of orders being settled. Directions made in paras [113] - [114] below. C: Costs reserved. Timetable to be set in final decision. REASONS Introduction [1] Tasman District Council (the Council) has made an application for enforcemen...