Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 34 Martin v Northland Education Trust Inc [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...out that he and Ms Martin had spoken on at least three occasions about other matters during the relevant period, she explained that her focus was on unrelated matters during those meetings. [16] Messrs Maden and Cottle considered Ms Martin’s response. They concluded that parts of the modern King Lear translation were offensive and repulsive, that the use by Ms Martin of the material was inexcusable and her failure to obtain approval for the material was a clear breach of her em...

2. CAC20006 v Spencer [2013] NZREADT 8 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...that there was a genuine miscommunication between the defendant and Mr Brown, the defendant, as a matter of fact, misrepresented Mr Brown’s acceptance of their offer of $90,000 with $20,000 cash-back. [41] We accept that it was the defendant’s responsibility as agent to accurately convey the offer to Mr Brown and to accurately convey his response to the complainants. That did not occur. [42] Mr Clancy submits that, in all the circumstances, it was seriously negligent and/or seri...

3. Lochead-MacMillan v AMI Insurance [2012] NZHRRT 5 [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...Mrs Lochead-MacMillan sent a further email pressing for the requested information. AMI Pukekohe replied on 14 April 2010 to the effect that Mrs Lochead-MacMillan’s concerns would be responded to early in the week following. There was in fact no response. It also transpired that on some indeterminate date the audio files of the two interviews were destroyed by VFR. Mr and Mrs Lochead-MacMillan were not aware of this development. [8] On 6 May 2010 Ms Shepperson met with Mr and Mrs Lo...

4. Civil Proceedings Steps March 2017 [pdf, 826 KB]

   ...Officer’s report  Attend on applicant with interpreter if necessary to take instructions on interview report to answer additional information sought  Attend on applicant with interpreter if necessary to examine decision and advise  Draft responses to any questions raised by the interview  Provide further evidence. Interview time Actual interview time For attending interview with applicant. Documentation Requirements  Application for Civil Legal Aid...

5. [2016] NZEmpC 123 Henderson v Nelson Marlborough District Health Board [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...her lawyer’s letter of 26 September 2014. [3] On 7 December 2009, Dr Henderson and the DHB entered into an individual employment agreement with effect from 8 February 2010. As well as containing a detailed description of her position and its responsibilities, that agreement included a list of key relationships for which the position was responsible. Internal and external relationships were provided for covering a total of 14 groups or categories. Internal relationships listed...

6. LCRO 213/2015 HY Trust v AK and GJ (21 Janaury 2019) [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...said: [11] The plaintiff is a charitable Trust with a national profile. The general principle in relation to a pleading of fraud, even Land Transfer Act fraud, is that it should only be pleaded where there is clear evidence of fraud. Counsel has a responsibility in that regard. [12] In the present case it is difficult to ascertain exactly what the fraud may be said to be. It appears from the existing pleadings… that it is accepted the former proprietor initialled the third schedul...

7. LCRO 57/2018 G RC and D RC v YS (30 April 2019) [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...on privacy grounds because they may contain information that is adverse to the [attorney], or …may be used against the [attorney]”. In their view “nothing is confidential” to an attorney appointed under an enduring power of attorney.3 Response [18] I refer to Mr YS’ response to the complaint in my later analysis. 2 Family Court Rules 2002, r 90E. 3 Meaning none of the donor’s information can be withheld from the attorne...

8. LCRO 185/2017 DO v DP (18 March 2019) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...— costs incurred [21] Ms DC claimed Mr DO incurred “unnecessary and very substantial costs working out” the final distribution from the firm’s trust account. She described the flowchart prepared by Mr DO as “complicated at best”. Response [22] Mr DO’s response to Ms DC’s complaint is referred to in my later analysis. Standards Committee decision [23] The Committee delivered its decision on 22 August 2017 and determined, pursuant to s 152(2)(b) of Lawyers and Con...

9. ZA v YB LCRO 164/2013 Recusal (31 August 2016) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...identifying the LCRO file number, parties’ names and date of any review hearing attended by Mr [ZA]. Any such application was to be served on the other party to the review application, and that party would have 10 working days to respond. Any response would be served on Mr [ZA], who was to have five days in which to file a reply. The LCRO noted that “response and reply are not an opportunity to raise fresh issues”. With respect to any more general request for recusal the LCRO di...

10. ZA v YB LCRO 23/2014 Recusal (31 August 2016) [pdf, 96 KB]

    ...identifying the LCRO file number, parties’ names and date of any review hearing attended by Mr [ZA]. Any such application was to be served on the other party to the review application, and that party would have 10 working days to respond. Any response would be served on Mr [ZA], who was to have five days in which to file a reply. The LCRO noted that “response and reply are not an opportunity to raise fresh issues”. With respect to any more general request for recusal the LCRO dir...