Search Results

1. Tweeddale v Pearson [2010] NZWHT Wellington 4 [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...in these situations - see Kelly & Ors as Trustees of the Kelly Family Trust– Procedural Order No. 5 WHT, TRI- 12 2009-101-47, 2 November 2009, Adjudicator R Pitchforth approved on appeal in Scott v Stewart DC Porirua, CIV-2009-091-650, Judge Walker. Amount of costs [51] The sixth respondents say that if the evidence as known to the other parties had been properly disclosed and the affidavits in support of retaining them not been sworn, they would have been removed on...

2. McDonald v Peters [2012] NZWHT Auckland 51 [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...McDonald has filed an appeal in relation to the substantive determination. The respondents referred to s 96 of the Act which provides that “an appeal under s 93 does not operate as a stay of the Tribunal’s determination unless a District Court Judge.... on application so determines.” I accept that submission and proceed to deal with costs accordingly. ISSUES [3] The issues are: i. Did Mr McDonald cause costs to be incurred unnecessarily by either bad faith or allegati...

3. VG v AB LCRO 263 / 2011 (10 May 2013) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...had already been subject to revision. Section 151 of the Act provided that the court shall not make an order for the reference of a bill for revision except in special circumstances (emphasis added). [17] The Court of Appeal rejected the trial judge’s finding that a serious risk of injustice was required. Although the three members of the court produced three different tests, they do provide some guidance in ascertaining the meaning of ‘special circumstances’. Woodhouse P,...

4. Litchfield and Anor v The Country Cottage Co Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 33 [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...Court refused to strike out both claims as it accepted as potentially tenable the proposition that a defective act done at some earlier date could be viewed as an omission to remedy that defect at a later date. In both cases, although the Judge expressed some doubt as to the success of such an argument, they concluded the matter required a factual determination which, in the circumstances of High Court litigation, is more appropriately addressed at trial. [21] Given the n...

5. Wooten v Dorr [2012] NZWHT Auckland 46 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...liable for damage done to a home by reason of that construction and the standard of care required of a subcontractor, such as Mr Kane in performing his trade, is the care reasonably to be expected of skilled and informed members of his trade, judged at the time the work was done.4 [27] Mr Pickering and Mr Boucken agreed that Mr Kane should not have been satisfied with the tiling surface that Mr Dorr presented to him. They both said that once he installed the tiling he was...

6. BORA Freedom Camping Bill [pdf, 321 KB]

   ...held that an unreasonable search or seizure is not open to justification: [4] In considering whether the rules are inconsistent with s 21 it is unnecessary to proceed through a step by step analysis in accordance with R v Hansen, as the High Court Judge did, because s 5 of the Bill of Rights is not in play. A search or seizure which is unreasonable in terms of s 21 cannot be justified in terms of s 5. There is no power of detention to effect the seizure and impounding of property. Judic...

7. Borst v ACC [2012] NZACA 3 [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...respect to questions of law, the relevant principles are as discussed by the District Court in O’Neill (decision number 250/2008) by Cadenhead DCJ at paragraphs [23] – [40], and approved by the Authority in Langhorne v ACC [2010] NZACA 2. See also Judge Cadenhead’s comment in Saipe v ACC (Decision No 21/2008), concerning the relevance of ensuring a proper use of scarce judicial resources. Background to the Section 114 Assessment Appeal [5] On 26 May 1976 the appellant was seri...

8. IG v HC LCRO 101/12 (3 June 2015) [pdf, 47 KB]

   ...the Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) on review is to reach her own view of the evidence before her. Where the review is of an exercise of discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting her own judgement for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. Scope of review [21] The LCRO has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a standards committee...

9. CD v EF LCRO 272/2014 (24 September 2015) [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...conveyed Mr CD’s approval to her active involvement in assisting Ms GH. [14] When the appeal proceeding came on for hearing in the High Court, Ms EF appeared as second counsel, and then billed Mr CD for her attendance. Mr CD says that because the Judge did not consider it appropriate to order the other party to the proceeding to pay costs with respect to Ms EF’s appearance as second counsel, he should not have to pay for her having been there either. More generally, he says Ms...

10. BI v YP & Ors LCRO 115 / 2010 (4 April 2011) [pdf, 97 KB]

    ...between litigious parties is seldom resolved on the basis of rational proposals. Not infrequently lawyers are retained to advance a client’s interests and are faced with the client’s directions about how to conduct the proceedings which are judged by the lawyer as being unhelpful to a resolution of the matter. It is incumbent on the lawyer to make known to the client any matters that they identify as obstacles to progressing the work that is undertaken, and difficulties can...