Search Results

1. [2020] NZREADT 21 - Hanford (12 May 2020) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...the appropriate penalty would be orders for censure and to pay a fine of $3,000 to $4,000. [34] Mr Hanford submitted that the appropriate penalty is an order of censure and the imposition of a fine of $1,000. He submitted that he had accepted responsibility for his actions, both with the Agency’s solicitors, and with the Committee, then entered his guilty plea at the earliest opportunity. He submitted that his agreement to a hearing on the papers ensured that costs were kept low...

2. Otago Standards Committee v Duff [2021] NZLCDT 25 (2 September 2021) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...finding of misconduct. [61] Mr Duff expressed in his evidence a view that ultimately it did not matter which of his entities he claimed business expenses under, since they were basically his. That ignores the basic accounting rule and legal responsibility that income is taxed having deducted the direct expenses that relate to the gaining of that income. Mr Duff paid and claimed many expenses that were properly personal ones through AKL, presumably because that is where the funds...

3. Brown v Edmonds - Succession to Kuini Brown and Mate Ihipera Rewi Tamehana [2021] Chief Judge's MB 988 (2021 CJ 988) [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...Ihipera Rewi Tamehana (also known as Maude Thompson) who was his mother’s sister; (b) His father is named in the objects of the Te Ahuahu Ngatikopaki Tamehana and Mateihipera Rewi Tamehana Whānau Trust; and (c) His father was appointed as a responsible trustee for the Te Ahuahu Ngatikopaki Tamehana and Mateihipera Rewi Tamehana Whānau Trust by order dated 4 December 1996 at Kaikohe MB 105-107; and (d) Subsequently, Johnson Brown has been denied succession to his whāngai fami...

4. Witana v Cutforth - Kohewhata 27C2A (2021) 238 Taitokerau MB 150 (238 TTK 150) [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...clear that the interests of ORT and the whānau trust conflict. Mr Burley, for Ms Bermingham-Brown and Mr Cutforth contend that their interests are aligned and so there is no conflict, or if there is, any such conflict is ‘de minimis’. [26] In response, Mr Irwin submits that while the interests of ORT and the whānau trust may be aligned, an actual conflict still arises as questions will remain as to whether Dr Robust approved the project in the best interests of ORT or the whān...

5. [2022] NZREADT 25 — Salt & Kellar v Real Estate Agents Authority (18 November 2022) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...supported in any way by the contemporaneous documentation. They submit that the onus is on the Respondents to support their assertions with cogent evidence which they have not done. [41] The Appellants submit that they specifically stated in their response to the Authority that they were not aware of any credits from JJH to be made at settlement and that this is uncontradicted by any evidence. They submit that any reference to credits by the Appellants during the phone conversatio...

6. Subritzky v McLauglin - Subritzky Whanau Trust [2021] Chief Judges MB 849 (2021 CJ 849) [pdf, 486 KB]

   ...the trust. Details of subsequent Orders affecting lands to which this application relates 26. There are no subsequent orders affections lands to which this application relates. Details of payments made as a result of the Order 27. Waiting on response from Māori Trust Office Reference to areas of difficulty 28. The applicant hasn’t provided enough contact details for affected parties. The applicant has been contacted to do so. There are no other areas of difficulty to whic...

7. Tawa v Tuaropaki E Trust - Tuaropaki E [2022] Māori Appellate Court MB 377 (2022 APPEAL 377) [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...Mr Kahukiwa about this at the hearing as it appeared, at face value, that if his client was successful on appeal there may considerable delay to the process underway which would see the trustees address a rotation policy with beneficiaries. In response, Mr Kahukiwa said that what his client essentially sought was that this particular issue be given priority and prominence, separate from other possible amendments to the trust order that were also to be considered by beneficiaries at...

8. [2022] NZREADT 22 — QQ v REAA (CAC 1902) & NQ (25 October 2022) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...[62] The appellant primarily contests the Tribunal’s findings in the earlier decision. He sets out what he regards as the errors. Such matters have already been determined by the Tribunal and it declines to revisit its conclusions. [63] In response to the claim for costs, the appellant contends there is no basis to award costs against him. He strenuously denies any wrong motive or bad faith. He says he cooperated with the Tribunal, but was unsuccessful because of his lack of e...

9. Witana v Cutforth - Kohewhata 27C2A [2022] Māori Appellate Court 405 (2022 APPEAL 405) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...The respondents submit that they have acted reasonably and in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the Omapere Taraire E and Rangihamama X3A Ahu Whenua Trust (“the ORT Trust”). They have not taken any steps in this appeal other than in response to the documents filed by the appellant, as part of their opposition to the appeal or as directed by the Court. In summary they submit: (a) Between December 2021 and 30 May 2022, the appellant had multiple opportunities to reconsi...

10. National Standards Committee 1 v Palmer [2022] NZLCDT 42 (10 November 2022) [pdf, 128 KB]

    ...He states he was told by another more senior lawyer that Ms X was struggling to find her place in the firm and to be given sufficient work. He gave her a piece of work and commented favourably on her performance to the partners to whom she was responsible. He says catching up with her socially, away from the firm was to further his encouragement of her, and that it was her suggestion that they meet out of hours. After he learned she was leaving the law altogether, he says he stil...