Search Results

1. FG v PL & ML LCRO 176/2014 (28 November 2014) [pdf, 42 KB]

   ...jurisdiction for the LCRO to amend a defect. [24] Section 198(b) clearly states that every application for review must be lodged with the Legal Complaints Review Officer within 30 working days. [25] Section 198 (b) makes clear that it is the responsibility of a party seeking to file a review, to file their application within 30 days of receiving notice of the determination. This is not a case where there is any uncertainty as to when the determination was served on FG, indeed...

2. AP v Standards Committee X LCRO 317 / 2012 (25 November 2013) - Costs Decision [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...3 Email from Mr CF to LCRO (24 September 2013). 5 [18] Mr CF’s costs application cites the vexatious nature of Ms AP’s bias allegations and the want of a proper foundation for them. The file indicated that the responses to the allegations were provided by the Committee members, apparently before Mr CF’s assistance was sought. No further information was sought by this Office but when a hearing was scheduled, further submissions were voluntarily pr

3. Osborne v Dixon [2012] NZWHT Auckland 5 [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...such remedial works. Therefore they could not be found liable in respect of those building works. The claimants have continued their claim notwithstanding invitations from the Council to discontinue. This has caused the Council to prepare a response, to take interlocutory steps to protect the Council‟s possession and then to proceed with a removal application and reply to the claimants‟ opposition. The Council‟s position has always been clear and addressed the lack of ca...

4. NZ Domaine Investments Ltd v Tauranga City Council [2013] NZWHT Auckland 30 [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...documents and failed to attend subsequent procedural conferences despite being notified of them. On 26 November 2013 he was served with the finalised claim and the signed witness statements together with a procedural order directing him to file a response to the claim together with any witness statements by 4 pm on 9 December 2013. The order stated that if Mr Broughton did not respond to the claim, the hearing would proceed on a formal proof basis. [6] Mr Broughton did not...

5. 2017 NZSSAA 048 (18 August 2017) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...part of the necessary treatment. Furthermore, obtaining medical assistance and other support had also been very costly. The financial support from the CDA is something that was very important for the appellant and her family. The Ministry’s response [13] The Ministry took no issue with the circumstances outlined by the appellant. The Ministry did however contend that notwithstanding the appellant’s personal experience, the Ministry is very conscious of the need to ensure t...

6. Reihana v Benedito - Punakitere 4J2B2B [2018] Māori Appellate Court MB 32 (2018 APPEAL 32) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...exhaustively those who might have standing to be heard. Reasonable steps must be taken to serve all interested parties, unless the rights or interests affected are speculative or insignificant. An interested party includes those whose public responsibilities are implicated, such as a public official or body administering a statutory scheme. In Waitemata Health v Attorney- General, a review tribunal erred by failing to notify the Director of Mental

7. Bratton v Le Lievre - Muriwhenua Incorporation [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 351 (2017 APPEAL 351) [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...adjourned. That meant the respondent incurred further costs without those in the Māori Land Court being determined. Appellant’s submissions [6] The appellant submits that there are no exceptional circumstances justifying an award of costs. In response to the respondent the appellant argued: 1 Bratton v Le Lievre – Muriwhenua Incorporation [2017] Māori Appellate Court 131 (2017 APPEAL 131) 2 By Memorandum counsel confirm...

8. BORA Building Amendment Bill (No 4) [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...is likely to be considered by the Cabinet Legislation Committee on Thursday 18 August 2011. 2. The Bill amends the Building Act 2004 (the Act). The purpose of the Bill is to provide incentives for building professionals and trades people to take responsibility for the quality of their work and to stand behind it. The Bill implements Government policy coming out of the 2009 Building Act Review to: • introduce better consumer protection measures • clarify the exemptions to building...

9. LCRO 40/2016 UV v EL [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...courtesy. Mr EL’s correspondence was, as he describes it: firm and decisive. [28] That aspect of Mr UV’s complaint lacks a firm evidential basis. There is no evidence of any other conduct on Mr EL’s part that calls for a disciplinary response. In the circumstances, further action with respect to Mr UV’s complaint is not necessary or appropriate. 6 Decision [29] Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the Standards Committee’s decis...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 17 Goldstone Aluminium Ltd v Edmond [pdf, 199 KB]

    ...did receive because of his poor English and so “did not respond to contact from the Employment Relations Authority”. This suggests he did receive notification of the action being taken, but claims he did not understand what he needed to do in response. The Act provides a discretion to limit challenge where there is a lack of good faith [15] Section 181 of the Act makes provision for the Authority to provide a good faith report: (1) Where the election states that...