Search Results

1. Memorandum of counsel for the Auckland Council in support of Notice of Motion under s291 of the RMA applying for waivers and directions dated 9 May 201 [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...have been added for parties to provide copies of any additional documents not in the initial CBD, when exchanging evidence on 7 August and 21 August (as the Court suggested). An updated CBD, incorporating those additional documents, would then be filed in soft copy on 27 August, with a hard copy being filed on 6 September. Reasons for this Notice of Motion 8. Very broadly speaking, the Council's Notice of Motion seeking waivers I directions has been driven by two factors: a...

2. [2024] NZEnvC 017 Aarts v Waikato District Council [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   Aarts v Waikato District Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Decision [2024] NZEnvC 017 an appeal under clause 14 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 AARTS (ENV-2022-AKL-000041) Appellant WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge S M Tepania sitting alone under s 279 of the Act Last case event: 2 February 2024 Date of Order: 19 February 20

3. [2009] NZEmpC CC 10/09 Rooney Earthmoving Ltd v McTague and ors [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...first defendant, Mr McTague, had breached their employment agreements, although the breaches were not causative of any financial losses to REL, whose claim for damages was then dismissed. REL successfully applied for leave to extend the time for filing its challenge1. The trial was on liability only, issues of damages being reserved for future consideration, if necessary. [3] The evidence was extensive and, as a result of the further disclosure of documents in the Court, somewhat...

4. Māori Land Court - Rule 5.11 Schedule - May 2017 [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   1 Notification of applications that have not been finally determined (over 6 months old) 31 May 2017 TAKE NOTICE THAT the following schedule of applications are hereby notified pursuant to rule 5.11(2)(b) of the Māori Land Court Rules 2011 being applications which are 6 months or older as at 31 May 2017, and which are currently held by the Registrar in the District set out, or, in the case of applications to the Chief Judge of Māori Land Court or those to the Māori Appell

5. LCRO 181/2023 HC v QG and VO (28 February 2025) [pdf, 413 KB]

   ...Improper removal and withholding of client documents [34] This complaint was of the improper removal or withholding of documents belonging to three specific clients (A, B and C), or of delay in the execution of required documents, on transfer of their files from the firm to the applicant between March and May 2020. The factual circumstances differed one from the others. [35] In each case, the complaint was one of breach of r 6 of the Rules (failing to protect and promote the client...

6. [2016] NZEmpC 120 Whanau Tahi Ltd v Dasari [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN WHANAU TAHI LTD Plaintiff AND KIRAN DASARI Defendant Hearing: 19 November 2015, 18 May 2016, closing submissions filed on 15 and 28 June 2016 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: M Ryan, counsel for plaintiff A Swan, counsel for defendant Judgment: 20 September 2016 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M E PERKINS Introduction [1] Thes...

7. Brightwell - Estate of Roera Rangi or Rangi Roera or Roera Te Heke-tanga [2019] Chief Judge's MB 1457 [pdf, 607 KB]

   ...majority of her children continued to live with Roera to the time of her death. Tongouri the eldest left when married, and two others appear to have gone away. When Roera was at an advanced age and as is alleged on behalf of the appellants, in an enfeebled state of mind, she registered four of Ngarongo’s children as her adopted children and these four children have been declared by the Native Land Court to be the successors to Roera’s interests to the lands in question. Excep...

8. [2015] NZEmpC 118 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...are, prima facie, payable to the Crown in any event, the monetary remedies claimed do not exceed $30,000. There are no claims for other non-monetary relief such as reinstatement. I think I can say with confidence that the parties’ own legal fees have already exceeded the amount in remedies claimed. [47] The defendant and PRI Flight Catering Ltd (PRI), by whom Ms Alim was employed previously and which the defendant says is funding her prosecution of these proceedings, are both...

9. LCRO 196/2016 GY v SO (15 September 2017) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...GY’s] ex-partner’s lawyer in light of the background to the matter”.18 (e) Concluded that “there are very few solicitors in [Town] and … Ms SO and Ms GY had met in previous round table meetings”.19 Application for review [19] Ms GY filed an application for review on 31 August 2016. She seeks an apology from both Ms SO, and the receptionist. She also requests that Ms SO be fined. [20] In support of her application she: (a) Asks whether a lawyer who has received “...

10. TN v LR LCRO 42/2013 (14 April 2016) [pdf, 77 KB]

    ...pursuant to s 138(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act). Mr TN seeks a review of that decision. Background [2] Mr TN is a professional liquidator who, together with his business partner, was managing the liquidation of a high profile company. Mr LR was acting for a company whose proof of debt had been rejected by the liquidators. Mr LR applied to the High Court to reinstate his client’s proof of debt and to remove the liquidators (the High Court application). Mr N...