Search Results

1. LCRO 84/2024 XA v MQ (25 February 2025) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...and Mrs YB lodged complaints on behalf of her mother4 with the Lawyers Complaints Service on 21 July 2023. The complaints were the same as those she had raised directly with Mr XA. Progress of the complaint [21] Mr XA was asked to provide any response to the complaints which he wished to make by 27 October 2023. [22] He did not respond. [23] On 8 November 2023, the Lawyers Complaints Service reminded Mr XA of his duty to respond to enquiries from the Law Society.5 4 Mr...

2. LCRO 30/2023 YO obo TM v EB (13 May 2025) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...sound judgement, and failed to take all reasonable caution that the situation clearly demanded before taking and acting upon our grandmothers instructions”. [20] They question whether or not Mr EB acted on instructions from Ms SM. Mr EB’s response [21] Mr EB provided a comprehensive response. He says:4 3 Complaint form (4 April 2022). 4 Email EB to Lawyers Complaints Service (20 January 2022). 4 • “Both Mrs TM and Ms SM expressed concern that Mr YO and Mr LO...

3. LCRO 13/2023 DG v PS (26 February 2025) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...appear at the conference, but rather reflected the judges disquiet that Mr DG had, through his own making, delayed the completion of discovery and inspection and delayed in filing his third-party applications. [27] Mr DG provided a reply to Mr PS’s response to his complaint on 19 May 2021. [28] His response in significant part reiterated and reinforced the concerns he had raised in his initial complaint. His view of Mr PS’s response was that Mr PS had regrettably endeavoured to po...

4. Mills v Capital and Coast District Health Board [2019] NZHRRT 47 [PDF, 731 KB]

   ...[19] Disclosures in the ERA statement of reply [25] PRELIMINARY MATTERS [33] The Hearing [33] Application of the Health Information Privacy Code [35] Application for permanent name suppression [36] The witnesses [37] SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AND RESPONSES [39] Allegations against the CCDHB and responses [40] Allegations against the HVDHB and responses [42] LEGAL ANALYSIS: ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE CCDHB [50] Whether there was an actual belief on reasonable grounds [60] LEGAL ANALYS...

5. LCRO 51/2021 KS and BG v WJ (30 September 2024) [pdf, 410 KB]

   ...District Court seeking judgment against the applicants for $63,712.05, being the sum of Invoice [XXX4] and the disbursements, plus interest pursuant to s 10 of the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 and costs. [21] At some point, presumably in response to an initial query about fees, the respondent sent some “invoice information sheets” to the applicants ostensibly explaining the basis of fee calculation. I will refer to these sheets later. [22] On 13 February 2019, before t...

6. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 AC suppl evidence Sam Shumane [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...(Applicant) resource consent application to construct a marina and associated facilities at Matiatia Bay, Waiheke (Application). The purpose of this further statement is two- fold: (a) First, to provide the Court with an update on my views in response to the rebuttal evidence by Mr Apeldoorn, dated 23 September 2014. Having considered that evidence carefully, I wish to update my evidence on the topic of marina access restrictions. (b) Secondly, to provide comments in resp...

7. Crosswell v Auckland City Council [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...tradesmanlike manner. The Tribunal held that the defects in the plastering would have been or should have been observed by Mr Ruffles and the defects should have been rectified. Accordingly, the Tribunal was satisfied that Mr Ruffles was significantly responsible for negligent and careless plastering work in the construction and was therefore jointly and severally liable for the full amount of the claim. Liability of Ross Roofing Ltd (RRL) – roofer RRL owed a duty of care to use re...

8. 2021-07-09 ORC - MOC- re PHC [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...reached between the parties in attendance at mediation on the topics and provisions referred to mediation. The only party that attended mediation but has not agreed to sign the mediation agreement in relation to Policy 7.D.9 (Topic C) is Wise Response Society Inc. The Council considers that Wise Response’s submission is not on Policy 7.D.9, but its submission will need to be dealt with as a general submission on PC8. 7 Some other final administrative steps for the signing of...

9. TQ v LX [2021] NZDT 1421 (1 April 2021) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...$14,335.57 and claims this amount from LX. 2. LX attended the first hearing but did not attend the second hearing. The absence of a party does not prevent a hearing going ahead. 3. The issues to be determined by the Tribunal were: a. Is LX responsible for the damage to TQ’s dog? b. Are the costs claimed reasonable? Is LX responsible for the damage to TQ’s dog? 4. The relevant law is the law of negligence and the Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA). The law of negligence...

10. KB & PB v VI Ltd & OQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 144 (16 August 2022) [pdf, 202 KB]

    ...when [the applicants] discovered the work and provided VI Ltd with a quote to remedy it. However, for reasons unrelated to this claim, VI Ltd choose not to accept that quote. 6. I accept the statement given by OQ Ltd, and find that OQ Ltd has no responsibility for the leak. Therefore, the claim against OQ Ltd is dismissed. As VI Ltd is the company that contracted to do the job, it is responsible for the bathroom work. Was the work carried out with reasonable care and skill? 7...