Search Results

1. LCRO 80/2021 A LN and B LN v QG (9 November 2021) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...disbursements of $115) were neither fair nor reasonable. [14] Mr LN attached a copy of Ms QG’s letter of engagement, together with copies of email exchanges between him and Ms QG, a copy of her final invoice and time records relating to that invoice. Response [15] Ms QG responded to Mr LN’s complaint through a nine-page letter to the Complaints Service dated 24 September 2020. In summary Ms QG submitted: (a) The hard drive failure concerned email data relating to a particular...

2. OIA-96282.pdf [pdf, 18 MB]

   ...Tena koe - Official Information Act request: Victim Support Thank you for your email of 24 May 2022, requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), information related to Victim Support. I have outlined your specific requests and my response to each below (please note I have added numbering for clarity) : 1. Confirm how much funding was given to Victim Support from MoJ for the last 3 years? On 27 May 2022, we confirmed with you that we would be providing this informati...

3. Kereopa v Gray – Aramiro Trust (2016) 113 Waikato Maniapoto MB 245 (113 WMN 245) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...Maniapoto MB 253 As well, the Court has the power, at any time, to add, reduce, replace or remove trustees under ss 239 and 240. [25] The Court of Appeal in Rameka v Hall set out the relevant duties of trustees: 20 [28] The general responsibilities of responsible trustees are set out in s 223 of the Act. That section refers to the following: (a) Carrying out the terms of the trust: (b) The proper administration and management of the business of the trust: (c)...

4. CAC 20006 v Richardson [2013] NZREADT 92 [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...8 August 2011, he was delegated by the Authority to investigate complaints by Mr Grant Tucker against the defendant and against the licensed salesperson Glenis Claydon in relation to the sale of the property. Inter alia, he referred to the formal responses received by the Authority from the defendant and Ms Claydon on 13 October 2011 and generally covered necessary background including the relevant email correspondence. The Evidence of the Defendant [17] The defendant provided a deta...

5. J. Kim v K. E. H. Kim [2016] NZIACDT 32 (22 June 2016) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...occurred earlier). [6.10] Immigration New Zealand wrote to Ms Kim raising concerns regarding the implementation of the complainant’s business plan on four occasions between November 2012 and February 2013. Ms Kim wrote to Immigration New Zealand in response. However, Immigration New Zealand declined the complainant’s LTB Visa application on 19 February 2012, resulting in her interim visa also expiring. [6.11] Ms Kim advised the complainant she could remain in New Zealand for a furth...

6. E90 Graeme McIndoe - Urban Design - RE – Applicant [pdf, 967 KB]

   ...restrictiveness for the following reasons: a) Architects will be familiar with responding to similar design requirements and will have in my opinion no difficulty in working with these. In fact it is often argued by architects that excellent architectural responses emerge from a creative response to the constraints that apply to any project. b) The Design Requirements are limited in scope and light in nature to recognise the temporary and event nature of these buildings. For exampl...

7. MacDonald v Wynyard - Manawakore C1 and Manawakore D (2016) 131 Taitokerau MB 149 (131 TTK 149) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...1956 and the Reservation Regulations have to be reached and the Court must consider whether there is any positive defence or reasonable excuse for unsatisfactory performance. [21] In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal held: 13 [28] The general responsibilities of responsible trustees are set out in s 223 of the Act. That section refers to the following: (a) Carrying out the terms of the trust: (b) The proper administration and management of the business of the trust: (c)...

8. LCRO 160/2017 EH v FP (23 April 2018) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...EH claims that in any event, Mr FP had failed in his obligation and duty “to uphold the rule of law, and not mislead people”, had exceeded “the limits of his jurisdiction”, and had “otherwise been untruthful and has misled people”. Response [29] Mr FP declined the invitation to comment on Mr EH’s review application. In doing so he stated that: by electing not to file submissions, [he was] not acknowledging the accuracy of any factual matters raised by Mr EH, which [...

9. [2019] NZEnvC 017 Cossens v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 4.5 MB]

   ...implementation and maintenance of the water supply associated with the development. w. In the absence of a management company, or in the event that the management entity established is unable to undertake, or fails to undertake, its obligations and responsibilities stated above, then the lot owners shall be responsible for establishing a replacement management entity and, in the interim, the lot owners shall be responsible for undertaking all necessary functions. 17. This subdivision...

10. LCRO 272/2015 PA v NT, RO and DS (31 August 2018) [pdf, 214 KB]

    ...quickly”; and (f) because, in her view, that was a “discount” price she objected to a reduction in that figure when her approval was sought by the trustees to take account of the repairs recommended by Mrs GL’s builder and architect. Response [20] In response to Mrs PA’s application for review, Mr LM, counsel representing Mr NT, expressed the view that Mrs PA’s application “raise[d] no genuine point that requires determination by [this] office”. He stated that...