Search Results

1. OIA-94638.pdf [pdf, 7 MB]

   ...this material appropriate to withhold . I do not consider there to be sufficient public interest considerations that render it desirable to make available the information being withheld under section 9 of the Act. If you are not satisfied with my response you have the right to complain to the Ombudsman under section 23(a) of the Act. The Ombudsman may be contacted at info@ombudsman.parliament.nz. Oliver Sanders Acting General Manager, Criminal Justice RE LE AS ED U ND ER T H...

2. Davies - Te Haroto Marae Maori Reservation (2015) 45 Takitimu MB 174 (45 TKT 174) [pdf, 438 KB]

   ...Liz Hunt, Mere Clark and Papara Wano should not be appointed. Issues [6] The two issues for the Court to determine are first, was there sufficient notice for each of the meetings held? Second, should the persons nominated be appointed as responsible trustees? Background Te Haroto No 2B No 1A (Meeting House) [7] Te Haroto No 2B No 1A (Meeting House) is 2.0234 ha and has 564 beneficial owners. The block was created by partition on 30 May 1986. 2 It was set apart as a Māori...

3. GUY Scott Grahame (CSU 2010 PNO 261) [pdf, 409 KB]

   ...was found shortly after 7.00am. Mr Guy’s death was reported to the coroner, and a formal inquiry was opened. Preliminary investigations confirmed Mr Guy’s death was a homicide, and police investigations were directed at identifying the person responsible for his killing. The coroner’s inquiry was accordingly Cor 9 COR REF: CSU 2010-PNO-000261 adjourned pending either advice that no one was going to be charged with a criminal offence relating to the death, or the crim...

4. DX v WC LCRO 7 / 2011 (17 August 2011) [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...aggrieved at having been charged around $10,000 for the preparation of an affidavit that was in the event never debated in court. He was reluctant in these circumstances to pay the outstanding sum of around $18,000. [12] The Practitioner’s responses set out in detail the background of the matter, including that the Applicant had been advised as early as November 2008 that the matter would not come before the Court for at least 12 months. The Practitioner also set out the steps...

5. Ron Lunken Family Trust v Haywood Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 66 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...RELEVANT LAW [13] A person who manages construction owes the same duty as any other contractor or sub-contractor whose role is capable of affecting the quality of the construction. However whether any liability arises requires an enquiry into the responsibilities, actions and omissions of the person.1 [14] The degree of control test, applied in Morton v Douglas Homes Ltd,2 is the relevant test for determining whether a personal duty of care was owed for building work...

6. JM v AHX [2011] NZIACDT 2 (21 January 2011) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...the Adviser was party to, nor something which he was obliged to be aware of and manage. Accordingly, I do not find the unprofessional and unlawful conduct engaged in by SN later in the professional relationship was a matter for which the Adviser is responsible. [22] The Adviser contends the fees initially charged may have been reasonable, that is the fee of $2,868.75. On the material before me that may be so, however I do not consider it material as the Adviser was not involved in the...

7. JZ v [Place] Standards Committee [X] LCRO 123/2014 (16 December 2016) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...applied. He noted that while Mr DR did not “necessarily concur” with his submissions he nevertheless deferred to the Committee’s view. 4 In other words, Mr JZ submitted that Mr DR had no firm view. [12] Mr JZ did not agree the firm was responsible for collecting interest. He says that “it simply offered to the lender to issue invoices for interest”5 for the following reasons:  The two trust lenders had no physical or postal address.  ABC Ltd prepared tax retu...

8. LCRO 179/2017 VB, CB & ON v QT (14 June 2018) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...credibility and unacceptable misconduct”. Receipt of Levies [11] They stated that the firm “inappropriately received $[Amount] paid by [them] to the trust account of [HGF] … for [their] Body Corporate levy payment [for] 2015”. 3 Response to inquiry [12] They claimed that their inquiry to the firm, dated [Date], about that payment was not answered by the firm. Authority to act [13] The owners claimed that the Body Corporate did not instruct the firm to as...

9. LCRO 260/2013 CS v RV (18 July 2017) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...at Mr CS’s firm around November 2011 and records that another lawyer, Mr P, held the file between 27 May 2010 and 13 September 2011. [9] The decision proceeds on the basis that although others were involved at various times, the firm was responsible to Mr RV. Although that overlooks the involvement the lead providers appointed by the LSA, the appearance of Mr CS’s firm on the Court proceeding is relevant to the decision, and to this review. The Committee referred to a seve...

10. LCRO 130/2018 UH v OB (12 February 2020) [pdf, 165 KB]

    ...the duty to act was owed, in what circumstances was it owed and to what extent by me and/or others alleged in the complaint [which] were not addressed in the IACDT trial”. • Mr OB was rude to him on the phone on one occasion. Mr OB’s response [10] In response to the complaint, Mr OB says:4 I received a very substantial bundle of disclosure … Much of the material was very repetitive and self-serving. Blame was attributed by Mr UH to the respective clients that he was aske...