Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Van der Zanden [2014] NZLCDT 54 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...was no bad faith. [5] However, we find the conduct to be towards the high end of the negligence continuum. Courts must be able to rely utterly on statements made to them by lawyers, as officers of the court. When those statements are in the form of a sworn affidavit, the obligation to be scrupulously accurate is even higher. 2. Aggravating Features? [6] The aggravating feature of the offending is that it was repeated on two occasions. Having been warned by the Court of Appe...

2. AW Ltd v ZD Ltd [2014] NZDT 672 (9 June 2014) [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...breach the implied deadline and therefore breach the contract? [6] What damages, if any, is ZD Limited entitled to? Decision Did the contract include a deadline by which the work needed to be completed? [7] Both parties agree the contract was formed at a meeting on Monday 21 October 2013. They agree the job was urgent. ZD Limited was approaching the two months of the year when it did almost all of its business and it had no website. It had been working on a website...

3. Reading v Bracknell LCRO 81 / 2009 (18 July 2009) [pdf, 17 KB]

   ...138(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyanvers Act 2006, to take no action. Background [4] When Mr Bracknell met Mr and Mrs Reading regarding the purchase of a property in Tawa, there was also some discussion about whether a trust should be 2 formed. Terms of Engagement documentation was prepared which confirmed the instructions concerning the property purchase. Clause 8 of the Terms document recorded a range of $1,000 to $1,275 plus GST, disbursements and expenses as the est...

4. Auckland City Council (as assignee) v Russell [pdf, 30 KB]

   ...or credits that were otherwise given by, respondents other than the Auckland City Council in settlement of their claims. 3.2 I invited the parties to resolve the question between themselves but they have been unable to do so and I have been requested to finalise the determination accordingly. 3.3 In a letter dated 9 November 2005 the Auckland City Council (through solicitors) asked that the Determination be for the sum of $70,000.00. There were submissions made in that let...

5. Darby Trust v Auckland Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 22 [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...scale based on roughly equivalent steps. [15] I accordingly order that Anthony Lawrence Allen is to pay the Auckland Council the sum of $36,601.85 in costs. APPLICATION FOR COSTS BY CEDRIC FRENCH [16] Mr French in a three line email also requests that his costs and disbursements of $28,356.22 be awarded for the same reasons as outlined by the Council. While I accept bad faith on the part of Mr Allen also affected Mr French he has provided no details of how, or to what ex...

6. Feebee Investments Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 30 [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...the certificate until sometime after the date of the final inspection. In such cases the reasons for the delay in issuing the CCC are relevant. Ultimately however a decision as to when a house is built is a matter of judgment based on all the information that is available to the decision maker. [9] Lang J also considered the effect of s43(1) of the Building Act 1991 which provides as follows: 43 Code compliance certificate (1) An owner shall as soon as practicable advi...

7. DE v WV Ltd [2015] NZDT 840 (4 September 2015) [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...that could not have been predicted and allowed for in allocating the hours originally. These include the need to move the footings and rebate boards again following Council inspections, and the substantial change to the stairs at the client’s request. None of these additions was a result of poor workmanship on the part of DE. [14] BB disputes that the first two items were substantial changes and adds that there was no handrail built so that should have saved some t...

8. BORA Juries (Jury Service and Protection of Particulars of Jury List Information) Amendment Bill [pdf, 368 KB]

   ...list. [6] The protected particulars may be made available to counsel and court staff, but not to the accused. A person who discloses protected particulars to the accused will be in contempt of court (clause 17). [7] A self- represented accused can request counsel be appointed to access the protected particulars for the purpose of exercising rights of challenge (clause 17). [8] 9. No issue of inconsistency with the fair trial right in s 25(a) of the Bill of Rights Act arises simply beca...

9. BORA Telecommunications Amendment Bill [pdf, 370 KB]

   ...services. ISSUES OF INCONSISTENCY WITH THE BILL OF RIGHTS ACT Freedom of Expression 4. Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act provides that: Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form. 5. The term "expression" has been interpreted as encompassing any conduct that has an expressive component.[1] The Courts in Canada and the United States have held that freedom of express...

10. BORA Electoral Amendment Bill [pdf, 288 KB]

    ...affirmed by s 25(c) of the Act; and 3.4 Greater specificity in reporting of donations (cll 44-46 & 48) and provision for reporting of loans for electoral purposes (cll 50), which place a practical limit on political expression by subjecting these forms of political support to public disclosure and so potentially “chilling” such support. 4. The first, second and fourth of these issues raise a common question of whether the various limits on political and electoral activity can be...