Search Results

1. LCRO 52/2022 AD v OC (12 July 2024) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...whether anything the respondent has done or not done constitutes professional negligence or, if so, whether the applicant has suffered any loss as a consequence. Those are matters for a court. The LCRO’s office is not a court and I am not a judge. Accordingly, I made clear to the applicant that he was pursuing his claim for compensation in the wrong forum. The applicant is a former lawyer and indicated that he fully understood the issue. [46] I am nevertheless obliged to condu...

2. ND & OD v MF [2024] NZDT 32 (2 February 2024) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...made the decision is a division, within 20 working days of the decision having been made. There is a $200 filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside of 20 working days if you have been granted an extension of time by a District Court Judge. To apply for an extension of time you must file an Interlocutory Application on Notice and a supporting affidavit, then serve it on the other parties. There is a fee for this application. District Court proceedings are more complex than Dis...

3. [2025] NZEmpC 90 Youtap Ltd v Johnston [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...Defendant Hearing: 10-12 February 2025 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: P Skelton KC, counsel and D Organ, advocate for plaintiff S Langton and M Povey, counsel for defendant Judgment: 9 May 2025 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE J C HOLDEN [1] This judgment resolves a challenge to a preliminary determination of the Employment Relations Authority that found that the defendant, Michael Johnston, was employed by the plaintiff, Youtap Ltd.1 [2] Youtap Ltd...

4. X Ltd v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 261 (14 March 2024) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...that made the decision is a division, within 20 working days of the decision having been made. There is a $200 filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside of 20 working days if you have been granted an extension of time by a District Court Judge. To apply for an extension of time you must file an Interlocutory Application on Notice and a supporting affidavit, then serve it on the other parties. There is a fee for this application. District Court proceedings are more complex than...

5. 2024 NZPSPLA 093.pdf [pdf, 315 KB]

   ...wear them. [32] He says it was an extremely difficult time because they were following instructions which at times, they felt were wrong. They accepted their client’s word that they were acting lawfully because he is a lawyer married to a judge. He says they felt stuck in the middle of the dispute between the client and Ms AL. It was especially difficult he says as the client would attempt to override his instructions to staff. As an example, he says the client’s instruction...

6. [2025] NZREADT 38 - NC & DG v Coote & Miller (2 September 2025) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...report met the need for evidence. The requirement is for evidence and not proof. If proof was required, that would impose an unreasonably high burden on agents who are not builders, engineers and weathertight experts. They cannot be expected to judge whether they are looking at proof that a defect does not exist. It is enough they have instructions from the vendor and information that gives them reason to believe the vendor is being truthful. The licensees did obtain confirmati...

7. Wellington Standards Committee v CLS [2014] NZLCDT 80 [pdf, 412 KB]

   ...THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2014] NZLCDT 80 LCDT 038/13 BETWEEN WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Applicant AND CLS Respondent CHAIR Judge BJ Kendall (retired) MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Ms S Gill Mr M Gough Ms J Gray Ms M Scholtens QC HEARING at Wellington DATE 13, 14 and 15 October 2014 COUNSEL Ms P Feltham for the Standards Committee Mr R Laurenson f...

8. Waitangi Tribunal - Part 2 Rangahaua Whānui District Auckland [pdf, 3.8 MB]

   ...series, which, when complete, will provide a national theme of loss of land and other resources by Maori since 1840. Each survey has been written in the light of the objectives of the Rangahaua Whanui project, as set out in a practice note by Chief Judge E T J Durie in September 1993 (see app I). I must emphasise that Rangahaua Whanui district surveys are intended to be one contribution only to the local and national issues, which are invariably complex and capable of being interpreted...

9. Ward v Maccol Developments Ltd [pdf, 194 KB]

   CLAIM NO: 00823 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER OF an adjudication BETWEEN PETER LOMAS WARD and HEATHER JOY WARD Claimants AND MACCOL DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED First respondent AND MARK JOSEPH COLLINSON Second respondent AND NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL Third respondent DETERMINATION CLAIM NO.00823 – WARD DETERMINATION.doc 2 INDEX INTRODUCTION

10. [2021] NZEnvC 096 Northland District Health Board v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 9.7 MB]

    Court: IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TAMAKI MAKAURAU IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND Judge J A Smith Commissioner S C Myers 1 Decision [2021] NZEnvC o:\6 an appeal under Clause 14 of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) in relation to Topic 8 Agrichemicals of the proposed Northland Regional Plan POPULATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH UNIT OF THE NORTHLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD (ENV-2019-AKL-126) HORTICULTURE NEW Z...