2843 items matching your search terms
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2022] NZLCRO 093 Ref: LCRO 188/2021 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN P & R MC Applicant AND JK and UV Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed Introduction
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2010-100-000112 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 4 BETWEEN ROGER JERZY AND SAMANTHA KAY ZAGORSKI Claimant AND WILKINSON BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED First Respondent AND ALLIED HOUSE INSPECTIONS LIMITED Second Respondent AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Third Respondent AND RICHARD ANDREW JOHN WILKINSON Fourth Respondent AND CATHERINE WILKINSON Fifth Respondent AND TIMOTHY JOHN BURCHER Sixth Respondent AND HITEX BUIL
...Waitangi, Waimate and Mangungu. The report draws on the claimants’ oral testimony, expert evidence, primary written accounts of the events, as well as the large array of scholarly interpretations, previous Waitangi Tribunal reports and court judgments. It sets out in detail how the two texts of the treaty were prepared, what was said at the various hui and the various accounts of the intentions of the parties. In its final chapter, the Tribunal sets out its conclusions as to the...
Before the Environment Court In the matter of And In the matter of And In the matter of Between And ENV-2016-AKl the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) an appeal under s 156(1) of the LGATPA against a decision of the Auckland Council on a recommendation of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (Hearings Panel) on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Unitary Plan) Proposed Plan
...with s 278 of the Act and Rule 11.10 of the District Courts Rules 2014, the Court has the power to correct errors including accidental slips or omissions. Rule 11.10 is set out as follows: 11.10 Correction of accidental slip or omission (1) A judgment or order may be corrected by the court or the Registrar who made it, if it- (a) contains a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, whether or not made by an officer of the court; or 3 (b) is d...
Speaking about cultural background at sentencing Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 Alison Chetwin Tony Waldegrave Kiri Simonsen with Strategic Training and Development Services & The Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit ii First published in November 2000 by the Ministry of Justice PO Box 180 Wellington New Zealand © Crown Copyright ISBN 0-478-20155-9 (Printed) iii Foreword The Criminal Justice Act, which came into force on 1 October 1985, brought about a
SMITH V STOKES VALLEY PHARMACY (2009) LIMITED WN 26 August 2010 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2010] NZEMPC 111 WRC 14/10 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN HEATHER SMITH Plaintiff AND STOKES VALLEY PHARMACY (2009) LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 9 and 10 August 2010 (Heard at Wellington) Appearances: Peter Cranney and Carolyn Mayston, Counsel for Plaintiff Tim Cleary, Counsel for Defendant Judgmen
...to sentencing (set out in appendix 1), judges consider the individual circumstances of the case, guided by the overall framework of the purposes and principles as they are set out in the Sentencing Act 2002. The judiciary considers any guidelines judgments and previous cases that consider similar offending. The Court must also consider an offender’s previous convictions as an aggravating factor at sentencing, among other aggravating factors set out in Section 9 of the Sentencing Act....
...Client’s potential Claim as set out in the Agreement”. [6] The “Project” was defined as: … the Claim Investigation and the conduct of the Proceedings in order to achieve Resolution of the Claim, with the aim of maximising Settlement or judgement proceeds, net of Project Costs, in respect of the Claim as quickly as possible, having due regard to all risks, and, in particular, the Proceedings being unsuccessful. [7] All capitalised terms in the above definition were also defin...
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2024] NZLCRO 009 Ref: LCRO 097/2023 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN RQ and EP Applicants AND OM Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed Introduction [1] The appli