Search Results

1. GC v OSC LCRO 113 / 2011 (2 November 2011) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...investigation and a number of specific questions were put to the Practitioner in relation to these matters. The Committee noted that there was some conflict between UJ and the Practitioner concerning these matters and also some variance in the responses provided by the Practitioner. [12] The Standards Committee considered the question of whether or not the retainer had been completed. The position of the complainant and that of the Practitioner were in conflict on this issue. A...

2. Sanquhar v Aberdeenshire LCRO 201 / 2009 (17 February 2010) [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...provided by the parties. The fact is Mr Aberdeenshire denies the allegations and disputes the facts upon which they are based (in his letter of 4 August 2009 in particular). The Sanquhars disagree with much of what Mr Aberdeenshire says in his response to this complaint and raise numerous factual disputes (in their reply of 21 August 2009). [9] The Sanquhars have presented evidence which they say proves their allegation. This includes a letter of 13 February 2009 from a Mr YY (sta...

3. White v Rodney District Council [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...their non- delegable duty of care to subsequent owners. The evidence established that the house was a leaky building and that it did not comply with the building code. Therefore as project managers, the Kerkins must therefore carry the burden of responsibility to ensure that their engaged contractors achieved the required standards. The Kerkins’ breach of such a non-delegable duty of care caused the losses and damages suffered by the claimants. It was therefore found that the second...

4. Tabram v Slater [pdf, 24 KB]

   ...found that the claimants acted negligently and in following the decisions of the High Court, the level of contributory negligence was set at 25%. Liability of Ojo Limited - designer As Mr Slater accepted that all departures from the design were his responsibility the Tribunal found that none of the causes of damage identified by the experts could be attributed to Ojo Limited. The claimants’ claims as well as the claims by the Slaters against Ojo Limited were therefore dismissed....

5. Thompson v Love [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...I then cancelled the mediation, as it was no longer cost effective. Counsel for both parties consented to the claim being determined on the basis of written submissions. Counsel for the claimant declined the opportunity to file a reply to the response to the claim. The Claim [5] The respondent, Robert Love, built the house for the claimants and construction was completed in March 1996. [6] I have adopted the chronology set out in the respondent’s submissions, apart...

6. Gemmell v Gemmell - Mohaka A4 [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 657 (2015 APPEAL 657) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...correctness of such an approach. 5 [8] We also reject Mr Davies’ submission that costs should be awarded against the Mohaka A4 Trust. It was Sam who singled-out Arthur for the costs award in the lower Court, and Sam must therefore bear the responsibility for the outcome of the lower Court’s costs award against Arthur and the subsequent appeal. [9] Turning to the issue of quantum, we do not accept that Arthur is entitled to what would in effect be indemnity costs. It cannot be...

7. UE v OV LCRO 213, 245, 296 / 2011 (18 March 2013) [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...issue that OV wished to raise could be addressed in the process of considering UE’s application. That view is based inter alia on the comments of Winkelmann J in Deliu v Hong & LCRO4 and s 203 of the Act. This comment was made by me in response to UE’s suggestion that if I found that OV’s application for review was invalid, then he might consider withdrawing his applications, thereby terminating the review process. [21] Once an application for review is made, the statuto...

8. Owners of 52 Aitken Terrace [2012] NZWHT Auckland 40 [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...fit-out recognising that the use of the building was now residential. [15] The claimants refer to a number of letters on the Council’s file between the Council, lawyers and owners of the units referring to the units being residential in response to Council’s request to make changes to the building including removal of kitchen islands and adjustment of bathroom fittings to reflect its commercial status. They say that in changing the status of the building from commercial t...

9. 2017 NZSSAA 015 (20 Aprill 2017) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...serve a memorandum indicating whether it seeks costs, the amount of the costs, 6 and a schedule and any supporting evidence to establish the amount of the costs claimed. [15] Mr XXXX will have a further five working days to provide a response to the claim for costs, if any. [16] The Authority will then issue a decision on the material before it as to whether to award costs, and if so the amount. Dated at Wellington this 20th day of April 2017...

10. LCRO 137/2016 HA v TY Costs Decision [pdf, 97 KB]

    ...“difficult to comprehend how [ABCD] would be detrimentally affected by waiving privilege to any such communication”.2 [19] In addition, as noted in [24] of the findings decision, the affidavit provided by the [ABCD] employee (Ms BD), in response to a specific request from this Office for evidence that [ABCD] had been requested to waive privilege and had declined to do so, did not provide the evidence requested. [20] The position arrived at in the review was that, while there...