Search Results

1. Henry v Wood - Part Whakanekeneke 1B (2014) 85 Taitokerau MB 175 (85 TTK 175) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...to exercise any other part of its jurisdiction the exercise of which in those proceedings the Court considers necessary or desirable. [42] I note the reference to provision of notice to the parties. This is to ensure the observance of natural justice and that there are no surprises for the parties. In my view there is no need to give any further notice to Jack’s family of the prospect of an injunction order as they are well aware that the nature of the relief sought by Pip is an...

2. Warrington - Hopa Te Piki (2011) 2011 Chief Judge's MB 325 (2011 CJ 325) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...MLC 2011 Chief Judge's MB 325 14 September 2011 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT 2011 Chief Judge's MB 325 (2011 CJ 325) A20060027945 UNDER Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Hopa Te Piki BETWEEN ROBERT WARRINGTON Applicant Hearing: 1 July 2008, 209 Aotea MB 11-19 (Heard at Levin) Judgment: 14 September 2011 DECISION OF CHIEF JUDGE W W ISAAC

3. Scarborough v Kelly Services NZ Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 53 [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...on an outcome and that without admitting liability, Kelly Services had made an offer of settlement: Following yesterday’s mediation meeting, your complaints of sexual harassment and victimisation were not resolved. Both parties discussed the matters fully. However, despite each party having heard each other’s perspectives, there was no agreement regarding the facts. Proposals were put forward by each party for closure of the matter. You stated that an offer of employment by Kell...

4. Herewini - Torere Pa 16 [2016] Chief Judges MB 34 (2016 CJ 34) [pdf, 403 KB]

   2016 Chief Judge’s MB 34 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIĀRIKI DISTRICT A20070012873 CJ 2007/62 UNDER Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Torere Pa 1B6 Hatu Whakamamaeroa Charles Herewini Applicant Hearing: 16 July 2013 at 2013 Chief Judge's MB 642-653 (Heard at Rotorua) Judgment: 01 February 2016 DECISION OF CHIEF JUDGE W W ISAAC...

5. LCRO 150/2018 LO v RS, NL and TA (28 June 2019) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...convictions). [6] In 2003, Mr LO obtained some information about the background to the 1998 convictions. He spoke to a barrister about a possible appeal against the 1998 convictions and paid that barrister $3000 for advice. [7] That did not progress matters. [8] In 2016, Mr LO spoke to Mr RS, who practised as a barrister, about the 1998 convictions and the possibility of an appeal against them (the appeal). [9] Mr RS gave some preliminary advice and then referred Mr LO to another...

6. LCRO 6/2022 ZED Limited v RK (21 February 2022) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...Committee’s reference to 94 hours is a typographical error. 5 At [18] and [19]. 4 [18] In connection with Mr YP’s obligation to pay costs as a result of the unsuccessful litigation, the Committee held that this was “not relevant to the matter of whether Mr RK’s fees were fair and reasonable”.6 [19] In addressing the reasonable fee factors in r 9.1 of the Rules, the Committee held that “Mr RK had the necessary skill, knowledge and expertise to undertake the work...

7. Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZACA 02 [pdf, 250 KB]

   ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY NEW ZEALAND [2016] NZACA 2 ACA 011/2014 Michael John Jones Applicant Accident Compensation Corporation Respondent Before: D J Plunkett Advocate for the Applicant: M Darke Counsel for the Respondent: C Hlavac Date of Hearing: 23 May 2016 Date of Decision: 21 June 2016 __________________________________________________________________ DECISION _____________________________________________________

8. [2019] NZEnvC 154 NEIL Construction Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 4.4 MB]

   ...public service. Even in the absence of an immediate external threat or civil emergency, the importance of the roles of the NZDF in peacetime activities such as search and rescue, maritime patrol and assistance to New Zealand's neighbours are all matters of very high importance. [69] In response, counsel for Neil did not challenge the significance of those considerations: rather he submitted that the making of a declaration would not have such consequences because the declaratio...

9. AF v BN LCRO 166 / 2011 (25 July 2013) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...states that he was engaged in work in the English firm which seems to be akin to that of the role of a legal executive in New Zealand. [7] Mr BN advised that he and his partner were responsible for Mr BO’s supervision, but on straight forward matters that role was undertaken by another legal executive. [8] Mr BO developed a close working relationship with a Mr BP who worked from an office next door to the premises occupied by [Law Firm 1]. Mr BP was a mortgage broker. [9] It...

10. AJ v ZQ LCRO 134 / 2010 (7 February 2011) [pdf, 139 KB]

    ...charged by the Applicant in connection with the sale, but her complaint essentially in this regard relates to the fact that he retained the sum of $5,000 against potential costs that may be incurred by his firm (WM) to subsequently resolve the matter. [19] The Respondent also complained that the Applicant had charged for attendances in connection with the dispute, which she states should not be her cost. The Standards Committee’s decision [20] The Standards Committee issued i...