15752 items matching your search terms
...before the Committee or on review. There is no other reason to order him to pay costs on review. [60] No costs orders are made on review. Decision 16 Duncan Webb Ethics Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer (2nd ed, Lexis Nexis, Wellington, 2006) at 229-230. 11 Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed. DATED this 17th day of Fe...
...explained those specific points at the time, she discussed Ms WK’s position with her, and Ms WK instructed her to provide the undertaking that the mortgage would remain in her firm’s deeds system and not be registered. [13] Ms YL’s fax in response to Mr ZM’s lawyers dated 28 March 2006 is a counter offer. With it she enclosed an amended settlement statement, which suggests that the parties had not reached agreement over the precise amounts of payments made between them re...
...consideration by the Committee to the complaint of excessive overcharging by the Practitioner. They added that no importance had been placed on the advice given by the Practitioner not to appeal the initial injunction and overall they felt that their responses to the Practitioner’s submissions had been “virtually overlooked” by the Committee particularly with regard to their financial situation. [13] This review has been conducted “on the papers” in accordance with Sect...
...transfer recording the name of the new Trustees had been overlooked. AAS was subsequently involved in additional attendances to effect this. [17] Before all of this work was completed, Mr YW retired and Ms YV, a legal executive in the firm, assumed responsibility for the file. [18] In September 2009, the Applicant had asked Ms YV to advise what the legal costs would be to refinance the Westpac facilities. Ms YV had advised that the costs with regard to the Trust would be in the vi...
...submissions had been received from other adjacent land owners. He therefore made conditional orders to cancel the roadway and vest it in Mr Rice, subject to giving the other adjacent landowners further opportunity to respond to the application. No response was received and final orders issued. [31] Things have changed since Judge Harvey’s decision. Ms Diamondaras now argues that the roadway is used to access Rangiuru No 2A No 10B Section 1 and Rangiuru No 2A No 10B Section 2....
...appears to have sub-let one of Warrington’s outlets, the Ashburton Discount Dairy, from which she is receiving rental payments there is evidence that she is herself paying one of its employees from a personal bank account. She is also said to be responsible for paying an employee who works for the Opawa Dairy. [35] Finally, there is evidence of other assets held in New Zealand by Ms Bal – an interest in real estate together with Mr Bal; and she is the registered owner of two...
...Nisha. I therefore indicated that I would not set the present proceedings down until counsel were prepared to certify that all interlocutory matters were completed. In view of what has now transpired, my earlier belief that counsel would act responsibly in bringing these proceedings to an early conclusion was mistaken. To be fair to the defendant and its counsel, it has indicated for a considerable time now that it is ready to accept a fixture. [27] Mr Matsuoka has been led by...
...the particular circumstances. There is little doubt that numerous factual issues will arise for determination. There have already been significant delays in dealing with the case (the parties are at odds over whether the applicant is responsible for those delays) and the Authority is poised and ready to undertake a prompt investigation. If the applicant is dissatisfied with the result it can challenge, including on a non-de novo basis. There is, conversely, no surety that...
...[38] The Committee also stated that while it is common that development contribution fees are paid by developers at the time of subdivision consent being granted that is not universal. The Committee went on to say that when buying vacant land the responsibility to determine what can be built and the costs related to that inquiry are matters for the purchaser or owner not the real estate agent. Submissions (a) Mr Jeuken [39] Mr Jeuken submitted that if it was “common but not u...
...was not an employee.8 [14] The Authority reserved costs. BCL sought costs on an indemnity basis, stating that this was justified because of Mr Noble’s conduct “in refusing to deal with the jurisdictional issue as a preliminary matter”. In response, Mr Noble rejected that argument, blaming the level of costs on the way that the Authority had conducted its investigation. [15] A different Authority Member considered the costs memoranda. He concluded that the Authority itself...