Search Results

1. Tahere v Trustees of Rangihamama X3A - Rangihamama X3A and Omapere Taraire E (2015) 118 Taitokerau MB 194 (118 TTK 194) [pdf, 207 KB]

   118 Taitokerau MB 194 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20150006203 UNDER Section 19, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Rangihamama X3A & Omapere Taraire E (Aggregated) BETWEEN FLETCHER TAHERE, TOKO TAHERE AND CANADIAN TAHERE Applicants AND TRUSTEES OF RANGIHAMAMA X3A & OMAPERE TARAIRE E TRUST Respondents Conferences: 2 September 2015 23 November 2015 (Heard at Whangarei)...

2. Dyall v CAC20001 & Lantz [2013] NZREADT 50 [pdf, 58 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2013] NZREADT 50 READT 096/12 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s.111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN LORNA DYALL Applicant AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 20001) First respondent AND JOHN LANTZ Second respondent MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Judge P F Barber - Chairperson Ms N Dangen - Member Mr G Denley - Member HEARD at AUCKLAND on 13 June 2013 DATE OF DECISION 1...

3. LCRO 230/2018 TM - Application for Review of a Prosecutorial Decision (3 April 2019) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...previously acted for both clients in relation to the conveyancing agreement. I acknowledge that I should have given clear written advice to that effect, and referred Mrs CP to another lawyer. I regret not having done that. [11] As to the other matters contained in BD’s complaint, Mr TM generally denies wrongdoing, but accepts shortcomings which he submits may not reach a standard where a professional disciplinary response is required. Role of this Office on Review of Decisions...

4. Nicholas v The Official Assignee - Lot 6 DP 34349 [2021] Maori Appellate Court MB 228 (2021 APPEAL 228) [pdf, 258 KB]

   ...background to this appeal is extensive. A restraining order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 was first recorded against the legal title to the Maketū land on 6 May 2021 Māori Appellate Court MB 231 2010, over 11 years ago. In that time, matters concerning the forfeiture of certain sections of Valentine Nicholas’ property have traversed the court system. In summary: (a) Assets and profit forfeiture orders were first issued under the CPRA by the High Court on 17 Aug...

5. 10.4 Appendix D: Environment Court In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines 2011

   ...conducted in confidence and in private do not have legislative force do not create enforceable rights and should not be construed to create expectations replace the Environment Court’s In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines 2005. Purpose and relevant matters These guidelines are intended to ensure that applications for in-court media coverage are dealt with expeditiously and fairly and that, so far as possible, like cases are treated alike. In making decisions and exercising discretion under the...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. News & media >
   3. Media centre >
   4. Media information >
   5. Media guide for reporting the courts and tribunals: Edition 4.1 >
   6. 10.0 Appendices

6. Aylesbury v Milton LCRO 61 / 2009 (31 July 2009) [pdf, 36 KB]

   ...arranging for that bankruptcy notice to be issued and served the respondents acted in breach of their professional obligations and were using the procedure to cause him embarrassment and distress and therefore not for its proper purpose. [2] The matter was considered by the Wellington Standards Committee 2 which resolved to take no action on the complaint. It considered that the existence of an unsatisfied judgement was proper grounds for the issue of a bankruptcy notice and th...

7. TB v NX LCRO 80 / 2011 (13 December 2012) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...raised the jurisdictional issue. He also noted that the Committee had not called for a costs assessor’s report. [17] At its hearing on 17 September 2010 the Standards Committee resolved to call for a report by a costs assessor and adjourned the matter until the report was available. [18] The costs assessor’s report was provided on 3 February 2011. In this report, the assessor referred to “the paucity of information supplied by Mr NX” and noted that the only reference to ti...

8. LCRO 46/2016 Richard Zhao v Yu Sun and Li Wang (7 May 2020) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...lapsed.”5 [15] The Committee “was particularly concerned that Mr Zhao failed to advise the complainants that their security had been lost”6 and that “Mr Zhao appears to have begun to conceal the truth from his clients by misrepresenting matters”.7 [16] In this regard the Committee was referring to a telephone call which the respondents say they received from a junior solicitor in the firm on 24 April 2015 urging them to resolve the dispute and assuring them that the caveat...

9. Self-represented litigants: an exploratory study of litigants in person in the New Zealand criminal & family jurisdictions [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   Self-Represented Litigants: An Exploratory Study of Litigants in Person in the New Zealand Criminal Summary and Family Jurisdictions Melissa Smith, Esther Banbury and Su-Wuen Ong Self-Represented Litigants: An Exploratory Study of Litigants in Person in the New Zealand Criminal Summary and Family Jurisidictions Melissa Smith and Esther Banbury Melissa Smith Esther Banbury Su-Wuen Ong July 2009 2 Self-Rep

10. Dotcom v Crown Law Office [2018] NZHRRT 7 [pdf, 944 KB]

    ...for that decision” before the action satisfies the definition of “interference with privacy” in PA, s 66(2). [19] The submission for the Crown was that: [19.1] The Tribunal does not have wide-ranging powers to inquire into or to rule on matters that are more properly within the scope of the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction, commonly exercised in the context of applications for judicial review. Nor does it have power to grant the remedies specified in the Judicial Revi...