Search Results

1. LCRO 62/2021 NR v JM (16 June 2022) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...Committee:1 Mr NR acted for Mr and Mrs JM in the drafting of their wills. Both wills were signed and kept by Mr NR. Mrs JM subsequently bumped into Mr NR “a few years ago” and he told her he was moving away and that he had given all their files to UH lawyer. … Mr JM died on 18 November 2019. Mrs JM contacted Mr UH to be advised by him that he did not have any of Mr NR’s files and so did not have Mr JM’s will. Mrs JM was unable to access Mr JM’s Kiwi Saver worth $2...

2. BMN v Stonewood Group Ltd [2024] NZHRRT 64 [pdf, 324 KB]

   ...return of his personal information; [98.2] $45.87 for a USB drive purchased at the request of Mr Bennett for the personal information to be transferred on to; and [98.3] $50.00 late payment fee charged by Inland Revenue Department for late filing of his tax return due to not having access to his personal information. [99] The Tribunal is satisfied that the expenses described above were reasonably incurred by BMN as a direct result of the interference by Stonewood with BMN’s pri...

3. Sharma v Manchanda [2018] NZIACDT 2 (2 February 2018) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...unlawfully and had limited options to request a visa, as generally a person who is in New Zealand without a current visa cannot apply for a visa; and [2.3] When the complaint was made, the Registrar required that Mr Manchanda provide a copy of his file, but he did not provide file notes that he later relied on. [3] The essential features of the grounds of complaint are, Mr Manchanda failed to take adequate care over the absent police certificate, did not give adequate advice and...

4. Pouakani Claims Trust v Tuaropaki A Trust - Pouakani Claims Trust (2006) 83 Taupo MB 155 (83 TPO 155) [pdf, 663 KB]

   ...commencement of the hearing Mr Paki initially sought an adjournment ofthe proceedings before eventually withdrawing his application altogether. [2] The respondents now seek indemnity costs which the applicant naturally opposes. Memoranda have been filed by all parties including a response fi'om the applicant's counsel and a subsequent reply from counsel for Ngati Raukawa Trust Board. The respondents claim entitlement to approximately $35,000.00 GST inclusive while the appl...

5. GH v UF LCRO 22 / 2011 (9 November 2011) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...Applicant expressed his disappointment that “an agreement in a letter, which was an implied contract, from a lawyer and a reputable [North Island] law firm can be flouted.” Considerations [19] This decision is based on all of the material on the file and such additional information as was provided for the review and at the review hearing. An Applicant-only hearing may be a first step in the review process and offers the opportunity to obtain greater clarification of the issues,...

6. INZ (Foley) v De'Ath [2018] NZIACDT 51 (19 December 2018) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...While the threat of a private prosecution was unjustified and lacked an evidential foundation, I viewed it as spur of the moment nonsense which could not be taken seriously by Ms L. 3 [7] Once the complaint against Mr De’Ath had been filed by the Registrar in the Tribunal, Mr De’Ath provided a written apology to Ms M. [8] I found it to be unprofessional and disrespectful to make complaints of serious misconduct without evidence in support. Furthermore, I considered Mr D...

7. Skudder - Tahorakuri A No 1 Sec 8B and Lot 1 Deposited Plan South Auckland 63822 (2017) 160 Waiariki MB 242 (160 WAR 242) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...plans for land which its Māori freehold status could be shown to be obstructing. Furthermore, the possibility of leasing, rather than selling, the land was an option that had not been adequately explored. [4] On 2 November 2016, the applicant filed the present applcation seeking a change of status on the grounds that his circumstances had changed since the 2014 decision. 1 Skudder – Tahorakuri A No 1 Sec 8B and Lot 1 Deposited...

8. [2022] NZEnvC 028 Bridesdale Farm Developments Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...Resource Management Act 1991, Bridesdale Farm Developments Limited is to pay Queenstown Lakes District Council the sum of $20,220.00, as a contribution towards its costs. 2 B: Under s286 Resource Management Act 1991, this order may be filed in the District Court at Queenstown for enforcement purposes (if necessary). REASONS Introduction [1] On 3 December 2021, the court declined the appeal lodged by Bridesdale Farm Developments Limited (‘BFDL’) in respect of Topic...

9. [2022] NZEnvC 021 Marlborough District Council v Gifford [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...considers contain costs that go beyond those incurred for the s 315 application. By way of illustration, he referred to the following: Invoice 1417 dated 31 January 2021. This relates to the period from 1 January to 31 January 2021. None of the fee note relates to the application for consent. Rather it appears to be in relation to general attendances. Invoice 1427 dated 28 February 2021. Again, this doesn't specifically relate to the application for consent but again relates to...

10. Webster v Takarangi - Ngarara West B3B (2007) 195 Aotea MB 127 (195 AOT 127) [pdf, 3 MB]

    ...dated 23 December 2003; 144 Aotea ME 105 dated 15 September 2004 and 180 Aotea ME 15 dated 21 December 2006. [6] A conference was convened on 13 November 2007 following which proceedings were adjourned until 15 November 2007. I directed counsel to file submissions on the issues of limitation, the identity of the defendants and the application generally. Mr Takarangi was then given a further day to provide a response to any submissions filed by Mr Watson. Submissions in support [...