Search Results

1. Body Corporate 199883 & Ors (Ridgeview Apartments) v Clarke [2010] NZWHT Auckland 22 [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...process. This included “intimate” involvement with all financial aspects, engaging a designer and construction experts and making decisions on sales and marketing. The claimants submit that the evidence suggests that Mr Clarke had overall responsibility for a lack of quality control and that he “evinced an unfortunately cavalier concern for the long-term future of the owners of the complex”. [43] The claimants further argue that however one interprets the documentatio...

2. LCRO 127/2017 EZ v UO [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...lawyer; (d) failed to disclose all relevant documents; (e) charged fees that were excessive; and (f) failed to release her files to her new lawyers in a timely fashion, despite having been directed by a judge to do so. [14] Mr UO provided a response to the complaint on 29 December 2016. [15] He submitted that: (a) Mrs EZ failed to understand the legal process in which she was engaged, and frequently refused to engage in the process; (b) Mrs EZ failed to understand or comply wi...

3. Chen v Loh [2013] NZIACDT 15 (19 March 2013) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...had approached another licensed immigration adviser and in a letter that adviser requested a copy of Mr Chen’s file. The letter was directed to Ms Gu-Chang. Lawyers acting for AGC provided the balance of Mr Chen’s file on 11 March 2011. The Response – Mr Loh’s Initial Response to the Complaint [40] Mr Loh responded through his counsel to the initial complaint made by Mr Chen, and also responded to the Authority personally. The key elements of Mr Loh’s response, from both hi...

4. LCRO 200/2020 SK and WP v AQ (27 October 2023) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...to the interests of both client and lawyer and having regard also to the factors set out in rule 9.1. [59] The reasonable fee factors specified in r 9.1 are as follows: (a) the time and labour expended: (b) the skill, specialised knowledge, and responsibility required to perform the services properly: (c) the importance of the matter to the client and the results achieved: (d) the urgency and circumstances in which the matter is undertaken and any time limitations imposed, includin...

5. Merso v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for Social Rehabilitation) [2024] NZACC 193 [pdf, 307 KB]

   ...further decision approving attendant care for Ms Merso, based on the recommendations contained in Ms Andrews’ report. An application to review this decision was lodged on 19 December 2019. [33] On 5 March 2020, Ms McGarry provided a report in response to Ms Andrews’ assessment, following a request by Ms Merso’s counsel. Ms McGarry described Ms Andrews’ assessment as “very thorough” and comprehensive”. Ms McGarry advised that she agreed with a lot of Ms Andrews’ r...

6. OIA-120623.pdf [pdf, 6 MB]

   ...date. On 17 April 2025, you were advised that the Ministry of Justice had decided to extend the period of time to respond to your request in accordance with section 15A(1)(b) of the Act. The consultations necessary to make a decision meant a proper response could not be made within the original time limit. The documents containing feedback from the Ministry of Disabled People and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner that are within scope of your request and my decision on their relea...

7. [2025] NZEmpC 28 IDEA Services Ltd v Wills [pdf, 328 KB]

   ...Authority.1 [2] Ms Wills was employed by IDEA Services Ltd (IDEA). She was given two weeks’ notice of the termination of her employment on 16 November 2021. The basis for the termination was that her role was covered by the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 (the Order) and that because she was not vaccinated, she could no longer lawfully undertake work. [3] Ms Wills raised a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal. The Authority found that IDEA...

8. JK v OC LCRO 254/2013 (10 February 2015) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...disclosed all documents to the Tribunal. • There was a Tribunal hearing without an internal process being held. • Mr OC stated that Mr JK had been involved in an internal process. • Mr OC stated that the Tribunal hearing was being held in response to an “internal written complaint” when that was not the case. 5 • Mr OC refused to supply copies of any documents held regarding the internal process. • Mr OC intentionally lied to the Chair of the Tribunal. •...

9. NZCASS advanced statistical methods [pdf, 369 KB]

   ...and deprivation are the factors to standardise by, which means we are analysing the effect of what if  both Māori and Europeans had the same age structure and deprivation. The process to do this is to  ‘weight up’ or ‘weight down’ the responses to give the same profile across the combined population.  For example, since there are more Māori aged 15–19 years, these responses would be ‘weighted  down’ and the Eu...

10. [2018] NZEnvC 056 Auckland Council v Auckland Council [pdf, 663 KB]

    ...functions (both under legislation and on their own initiative under their power of general competence2) and are the primary consent authorities established under the Act. As Mr James Hassall, the Council's Director - Legal and Risk, put it in response to a question from the Court, this was all "business as usual." The Applicant's appeal [10] After receiving the decision of the Council qua consent authority, the Council qua applicant met informally with members...