Search Results

1. Deputy Registrar v Graham - Parehuia June Durie Kaitiaki Trust (2015) 334 Aotea MB 201 (334 AOT 201) [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...$2,859.77 in holiday expenses. [40] At the hearing held on 20 October 2008 I questioned Mrs Graham on a number of the expenses in the 2004-2005 accounts. Mrs Graham gave evidence that the secretarial services were provided by Aroha Baker who was responsible for preparing the accounts and that there were invoices to support that cost. 21 The Silks report however states that whilst an invoice was rendered it did not state what services were carried out. Mrs Graham also says...

2. Mok v Boyd [2010] NZWHT Auckland 29 [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...was paid included a margin for supervising other builders: Mr Kohler: Let‟s just take Mr Tibbits and Mr Andrew being paid $20 on your evidence, per hour, $22 on his. There‟s no margin in that for Mr Tibbits for supervision of and responsibility of other people, is there? Mr Boyd: I paid him $20 an hour. I paid him to build the house. Mr Kohler: No, no. You know what I am getting to... Mr Boyd: I paid him $20 to build the house. Page | 22 Mr Kohler:...

3. Hall v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 6 [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...he installed some but not all of the cladding, particularly as he installed the fibre cement weatherboards. I conclude that it is more likely than not that Mr Black or his employees installed all the cladding. I conclude that Mr Black was responsible for the defects in the inter-storey joints and bands. [71] A primary cause of damage on the east elevation was the lack of waterproofing membrane on the balustrades. Mr Black had a duty to ensure that the substrate was app...

4. E89 Grant Calder - Event Management - RE – Applicant [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   ...particularly opening / closing ceremonies and racing days. 2599 Page | 16 The MEOC will provide command, control and coordination (a ‘C3’ structure), which will enable coordinated, responsive and real time, event management. The MEOC will run scenario testing and preparedness exercises before the Event to challenge the systems that will be put in place. The MEOC will allow a dynamic and responsive approach to ov...

5. LCRO 48/2019 VW v EX and TY (3 May 2021) [pdf, 324 KB]

   ...not reconcile that invoice with their 31 October 2016, and 1 December 2016 invoices. He asked why they did not, as they “normally” did, note the date of each attendance in the invoice narration for the 2 November, and 1 December invoices.11 Response [22] I refer to Ms EX’s, and Mr TY’s response in my later analysis.12 11 Invoices (31 October 2016 for $3,885 plus GST; 2 November 2016 for $7,000 plus GST; 1 December 2016 for $13,630 plus GST). 12 Ms EX and Mr TY, letter (by...

6. Hoete v Faulkner - Motiti North C No 1 Block (2017) 136 Waikato Maniapoto MB 278 (136 WMN 278) [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...reason, a partition application was not filed with the Māori Land Court until 14 June 2016. [17] Graham and Aubrey Hoete organised hui on 29 November and 6 December 2008 to discuss a proposed airstrip on the block. The calling of the hui were in response to the closure of an airstrip known as the “mailbox airstrip”, previously owned by Vernon Wills. The only other airstrip on the island is owned by Motiti Avocados Limited, and is not available for public use. [18] The Hoete...

7. LCRO 87/2018 QZ v FZB (20 December 2019) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...documents, (b) preventing Mr QZ from acting for Mrs TV’s estate or RP against the trust, and (c) requiring Mr QZ to pay FZB’s costs in dealing with Mr QZ concerning the matters complained about. (1) Authority to uplift [18] Mr GN said Mr QZ’s response to receipt on 18 April 2017 from Mr AL of the deed of appointment of trustees, and the authority to uplift, was that he would issue an invoice for his “attendances to date in relation to trust matters”, and when “cleared...

8. LCRO 111/2024 MS v PC (24 March 2025) [pdf, 273 KB]

   ...the respondent referred to the director by name. Proper supervision [86] In relation to r 11.1(b) of the Rules, it is the lawyer’s employer who has an obligation to supervise and manage an employed lawyer’s work. It is not the employee’s responsibility to ensure that he or she is properly supervised. A complaint about this could only be made against the respondent’s barrister employer. Failure to uphold the law or facilitate the administration of justice [87] The potential...

9. LCRO 10/2024 BV and XV v OQ (28 May 2025) [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...lawyer’s conflict of interests.2 Standards Committee processes [32] The Committee informed Mr OQ that it did not require him to respond to Mrs BV and Mr XV’s complaint, though invited him to do so if he wished.3 [33] Mr OQ did not provide any response. Standards Committee decision [34] The Committee identified the professional conduct requiring determination was whether Mr OQ was in breach of r 5.4 of the Rules.4 2 NH v Singh LCRO 53/2013, 27 August 2014 per Review Officer...

10. Regulatory Impact Statement Trustee Amendment Bill [pdf, 378 KB]

    ...policy work required 10. The option of reviewing the broader role of trustee of last resort, particularly in relation to wholesale products and family trusts, would require additional policy work. If interest is shown in this option, the Government Response to the Law Commission’s forthcoming report on the Trustee Act 1956 would provide an opportunity to undertake this work. David King General Manager Civil and Constitutional Policy Ministry of Justice _____...