Search Results

1. Nicholson v Pene - Tauakira No. 2M No.4 (2023) 477 Aotea MB 140 (477 AOT 140) [pdf, 442 KB]

   477 Aotea MB 140 I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O AOTEA In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Aotea District AP-20230000022798 A20200007388 AP-20230000022797 A20200006272 WĀHANGA Under Sections 18(1)(a), 18(1)(d) and 24A Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Tauakira No. 2M No. 4 I WAENGA I A Between SUSAN NICHOLSON ON BEHALF OF THE PETAERA AND POTAKA-OSBORNE WHĀNAU Te Kaitono Applic

2. [2014] NZEmpC 180 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...WRC 8/09 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN LYNNE FRANCES SNOWDON Plaintiff AND RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: (on the papers by submissions filed on 1 May, 30 May and 19 June 2014) Appearances: C R Carruthers QC, R L Fletcher, counsel for the plaintiff M Quigg, counsel for the defendant Judgment: 26 September 2014 COSTS JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A D FORD...

3. Body Corporate 199883 & Ors (Ridgeview Apartments) v Clarke [2010] NZWHT Auckland 22 [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...Following the liquidation of CFA in 2006, the High Court proceedings were transferred to this Tribunal. [7] Mr Clarke was not a defendant in the High Court proceedings but was named as the fourth respondent when the claim for adjudication was filed with the Tribunal. Following a partial settlement of the proceedings in September 2009, concluded between the claimants and a number of the other respondents, including Martinsen Architectural Design and Mr Roy Andrews, Mr Clark...

4. NZ Private Prosecution Service Ltd v Key (Strike-Out Application) [2015] NZHRRT 48 [pdf, 157 KB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2015] NZHRRT 48 Reference No. HRRT 024/2015 UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 BETWEEN NEW ZEALAND PRIVATE PROSECUTION SERVICE LIMITED PLAINTIFF AND JOHN PHILIP KEY DEFENDANT AT WELLINGTON – ON THE PAPERS BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Mr MJM Keefe JP, Member Ms ST Scott, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr G McCready in person for plaintiff Mr PT Kiely for defendant DATE OF HEARIN

5. Burke Family Trust v Wellington City Council [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...was the subject of technical expert discussion as mentioned below. 5.3 The claim was also for the sum of $4,516.27 for "remediation costs that the claimants have incurred to date". First I note that those claims include certain fees and expenses, namely: Joyce Group $400.00 BIA 250.00 Joyce Group 840.00 Total $1,490.00 GST inclusive $1,676.25 5.4 I do not think that costs claims of that nature can be included and disallow them leaving a balance of $3,316....

6. EA v WSC2 LCRO 11 / 2011 (24 June 2011) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...for the Standards Committee in that decision when coming to its decision to continue with this investigation. [17] On 8 June 2011, I requested the Standards Committee to provide me with a copy of the Opinion referred to in the Standards Committee file and by which it was no doubt guided in coming to its decision. [18] On 20 June 2011 the Committee advised that it objected to the production of the Opinion, and the Legal Standards Officer advised in a subsequent telephone conversati...

7. RV v ZL LCRO 85/2012 (23 May 2016) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...never acted for Mr RV in relation to [Company A]. • Mr ZL misled NZLS by omitting to advise he had acted for both parties in the transaction. [26] Finally, the Committee considered whether it should order an independent review of Mr ZL’s files but reached the view it was not necessary to do so. [27] In summary, the Committee determined to take no further action in respect of any of Mr RV’s complaints. Review [28] The review progressed by way of a hearing in [City] on 28...

8. LQ v VN LCRO 43 / 2011 (3 May 2012) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...the amount to [VN] as payment had not been made to her, as ordered by the LCRO, in the manner in which she required it to be made. [LQ] had also 7 declined to allow her solicitors to take the compensation amount in payment of outstanding fees owed by her to that firm. The Committee found it difficult to understand why [LQ] simply did not direct her solicitors to forward the money to her rather than directing them to repay the money to [VN]. [46] The Committee considered that in...

9. VW v AR LCRO 110 / 2012 (12 December 2012) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...is some confusion in the papers as to the exact date of this telephone call. In his submissions to the Standards Committee, the Practitioner indicates that the call was received on 20 January. However the attached contemporaneous handwritten file note of that call seems to be dated 29 January. In the Practitioner’s letter to the Applicant dated 22 August 2011, he refers to 29 January as the date on which he received instructions that the first agreement had been “canned”....

10. [2018] NZEmpC 33 Nisha Alim v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 289 KB]

    ...repeating the fact that the final Calderbank offer from LSG to Ms Alim was made on 30 June 2015, when she was offered the sum of $6,611.97 gross for wages, $15,000 compensation for hurt and humiliation, $5,000 plus GST as contribution to her legal fees, and an expression of regret that LSG had been unable to resolve issues relating to Ms Alim’s terms and conditions of employment to her satisfaction; LSG also offered a waiver of its entitlement to costs in the Authority. The offer...