Search Results

1. LCRO 213/2017 AA v BB and CC (26 April 2018) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...(as can be seen above) within a 10 day timespan. The complaint and the Standards Committee decision [8] The clients lodged a complaint with the New Zealand Law Society Complaints Service (NZLS) on 10 March 2017. Their complaint raised three matters of concern to them. [9] However, on review it is only necessary to refer to the complaint upheld by the Committee in unsatisfactory conduct terms, a determination contested by Ms AA. [10] That complaint was that the fees charged by...

2. EI v SB & HS [2015] NZDT 1437 (28 October 2015) [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...because HS was acting as liquidator for EN when he carried out the acts that are the subject of this claim. 13. The powers and duties of a liquidator are provided for by the Companies Act 1993 and the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over matters that come within that Act. The two sections in the Companies Act that are of particular relevance here are sections 248 and 284. 14. Section 248 sets out the main consequences of the liquidation of a company. It provides, in part:...

3. [2023] NZEnvC 177 Otago Regional Council v Armishaw [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...as the delay was caused by Mr Armishaw’s non- compliance and there is no identifiable prejudice that would be caused to him. [23] The Council further submits that the issue of costs has not finally been determined, and the overall interests of justice weigh in favour of granting the waiver considering the history of the proceedings. No reply to the application [24] Mr Armishaw did not file a response to the Council's application or to any subsequent correspondence. Relev...

4. Puohotaua v Ranginui - Rakatō B [2024] Māori Appellate Court 19 (2024 APPEAL 19) [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...preventing Ms Puohotaua or her agents from entering the land other than to remove the bach. He aha ngā take o te pīra? What are the issues on appeal? [13] The appellant filed the appeal without the benefit of advice from counsel, focusing on matters irrelevant to the nature of the order appealed. However, her appeal did raise the following questions: (a) Was the interim injunction order properly made? (b) Was the s 18(1)(a) determination properly made? (c) Was the permanent...

5. [2025] NZIACDT 20 – EI v Liu (3 March 2025) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...financially responsible. The loss was caused by the agent, not by his involvement in processing the visa application. He acknowledges his negligence, but this does not equate to liability for financial compensation. The complainant should seek justice from the agent who took his money and the employer offering the fraudulent job. It would not be fair or just to seek compensation from him. He is being targeted as the easiest party, rather than holding the actual wrongdoers account...

6. Proactive release - Second Interim Regulatory Impact Statement: Consultation options for adoption law reform [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...Conducting two rounds of public engagement within this timeframe has constrained the level and depth of evidence gathering and analysis which can be carried out prior to engagement. Regulatory Impact Statement | 4 • Defined scope: The following matters are out of scope of the reform: o Past adoption practice, as past adoption placements are being considered as part of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions (‘the R...

7. Marshall v IDEA Services Ltd (HDC Act) [2020] NZHRRT 9 [pdf, 434 KB]

   IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2020] NZHRRT 9 Reference No. HRRT 041/2018 UNDER THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER ACT 1994 BETWEEN EAMON HENNING MARSHALL PLAINTIFF AND IDEA SERVICES LIMITED DEFENDANT AT NAPIER BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines ONZM QC, Chairperson Ms GJ Goodwin, Deputy Chairperson Ms LJ Alaeinia JP, Member Mr MJM Keefe QSM JP, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr GW Marshall as agent for his son Ms I Reuv

8. Hall v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 6 [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...the joinery however there is no evidence that the mitre joints failed either before or during installation. I therefore conclude that Mr Black is not liable for this defect. [73] Mr Black claimed that there had been a breach of natural justice because the claimants did not notify him of their claim before the repairs were completed. Mr Endean submitted that there must 27 be adverse consequences for a claimant who fails to inform a party before remediation that there...

9. Otago Standards Committee v Davidson [2012] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...record prior to this unfortunate event, which is why we propose suspension, rather than striking off. [32] We also appreciate that there are personal and professional factors that should be taken into account for Ms Davidson, but they are matters that mitigate the length of suspension in this case, not the fact of suspension, given the gravity of the conduct. [33] As was said in Bolton:7 “Because orders made by the Tribunal are not primarily punitive, it follows th...

10. LCRO 89/2024 YL v FV (16 July 2025) [pdf, 307 KB]

    ...Committee to take no further action on his complaint about the professional conduct of the respondent, Miss FV.1 What gave rise to the complaint? [2] The following narrative records only the material events leading to the complaint being made. Factual matters in dispute will be discussed later in the decision. 1 Defined terms (the applicant, the respondent etc.) are used to facilitate the anonymised publication of this decision. 2 [3] The applicant engaged the respondent in Ja...