Search Results

1. Wirihana-Tawake v Kauika-Stevens - Rangitatau 1D5A1 Takirau Marae (2021) 434 Aotea MB 114 (434 AOT 114) [pdf, 313 KB]

   ...CLARK KAUIKA-STEVENS Te Kaiurupare Respondent Nohoanga: Hearing 9 March 2021, 429 Aotea MB 260-275 (Heard at Whanganui) Kanohi kitea: Appearances Scott Wirihana-Tawake in person Clark Kauika-Stevens in person Whakataunga: Judgment 30 June 2021 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ L R HARVEY Judgment of Judge L R Harvey Hei kōrero tīmatanga Introduction [1] Scott Wirihana-Tawake, on behalf of Te Wirihana Tawake Whānau T...

2. [2016] NZEmpC 175 Wikaira v The Chief Executive of Department of Corrections [pdf, 767 KB]

   ...Auckland), 23 and 24 August 2016 (at Whangarei), 3 and 4 November 2016 (at Auckland), and by written submissions filed on 11 and 18 November 2016 Appearances: MW Ryan, counsel for plaintiff J Rooney and M Hoolihan, counsel for defendant Judgment: 20 December 2016 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN INDEX Introduction and issues ………………………………………………………….. [1] The relevant evidence leading to the defendant’s inv...

3. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hart [2012] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...the waiver which was of course, as recorded in our decision, specifically provided by the client in any event. We will refer to further submissions concerning Charge 3 in discussion of the Orlov v New Zealand Law Society12 decision later in this judgment. [32] Finally Mr King submitted that the publicity that had accompanied these proceedings will ensure that the public is protected because the instructing solicitors and members of the public alike will be vigilant in relation to M...

4. LCRO 60/2017 NV v GW (31 July 2017) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [31] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:4 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determinati...

5. WT Te Manutukutuku Issue 70 [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...court cases contesting government policies of the late 1980s. Among other things, this litigation helped establish the current legal status of the Treaty of Waitangi, through the Court of Appeal’s articulation of Treaty principles in its Lands judgment. Later, Sir Graham reflected that up until 1987 ‘the Māori dimension in New Zealand law was understated… After the Appeal Court decision it attained a position of equality’. Court action also resulted in settlements involvin...

6. M and M v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2019] CEIT-2019-0047 [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...response is to be filed by14 February 2020; and (c) Mr Johnson is to reply to Mr Thane's submissions by 21 February 2020. Overall cost [99] The matters already traversed by the Tribunal concern the scope of the repairs: this section of the judgment concerns the cost of those repairs. [100] IAG has been told by Mr Creighton that the estimate supplied by WCL is unreasonably high. Counsel agree that a method should be established to determine whether that is the case. Mr Joh...

7. [2022] NZREADT 7 - WM & NU v Real Estate Agents Authority (28 April 2022) [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...agree with the Committee’s outcome, but not with the extravagant language employed. The evidence does not establish deliberate falsity or dishonesty. We find that for the reasons given below, Mr Cartwright did not exercise the skill, care and judgement expected of a reasonably competent licensee, in representing the property as ready for occupation the following month. In other words, he was negligent, rather than wilfully misrepresenting the true position. [69] Notwithstandi...

8. LCRO 167/2023 UG v XY and EP (17 July 2025) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...saw as in a very difficult situation and with little resources available to her, from her perspective, your interventions only made matters worse. It is important, for the reputation of the profession to be upheld, that lawyers exercise better judgement than their clients. We admonish you to bear that in mind. [110] XY argues that case differed from the matters under review. However, I take nothing more from the Tribunal’s decision than that lawyers must only accept instructions...

9. LCRO 207/2018 PC v FM (10 September 2019) [pdf, 499 KB]

   ...were unable to salvage by agreement a right to occupy the premises through to 2021. The requirement of a redevelopment clause presumably thwarted efforts to reach any such accommodation. [24] Ms PC then sued [law firm A] in the District Court. Judgment was issued on 8 June 2018 in favour of Ms PC for an amount of $60,000 and costs, the trial judge having found that there had been a fiduciary duty breach by [law firm A]. [25] The Judge said that it was… [30] … incumbent on...

10. [2025] NZEmpC 186 Menzies v Corrigan [pdf, 309 KB]

    ...Second Defendant AND LAWRENCE ANDERSON Non-party AND CATHERINE STEWART BARRISTER Non-party Hearing: On the papers Appearances: L Anderson, non-party and advocate for plaintiff CW Stewart, non-party Judgment: 22 August 2025 COSTS JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF JUDGE KATHRYN BECK Introduction [1] This judgment resolves two applications for costs: (a) an application by Catherine Stewart Barrister, a non-party, for costs aga...