Search Results

1. Davies v Davies - Pipiwai A2 being Part Lot 1 DP 12852 (2025) 297 Taitokerau MB 1 (297 TTK 1) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...trespass notices issued in November 2024, the state of the house and the abuse that they have received, the trustees have felt that they have had no alternative than to seek orders from the Court. Ngā kōrero a Derrell Davies Derrell Davies’ response [22] Derrell’s response is that he does not acknowledge the Riu Roa Niha Davies Whānau Trust as it was constituted on the basis of misleading information provided to the Māori Land Court. He says that he and his family who d...

2. Glossary of terms

   ...when you are released from court or Police custody most likely on conditions, including that you return to court for their next required appearance. For more information see the Bail Act 2000 and the Community Law website. Burden of proof Refers to the responsibility of proving a disputed charge or allegation. In criminal cases, the prosecution has this responsibility and the standard of proof that applies is beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that it is the prosecutor’s role to prove beyo...

   Located in:

   1. Courts >
   2. Going to court >
   3. Going to court without a lawyer >
   4. Representing yourself in a criminal case in the High Court

3. National Standards Committee v Young [2018] NZLCDT 20 [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...culpability: two were at the level of misconduct, one at negligence at the s 241(c) level, and one at the level of unsatisfactory conduct. [2] The Standards Committee submitted that the combined effect of the findings led to the position that a proper response, to reflect the purposes of the Act1, was to strike the practitioner from the Roll of Barristers and Solicitors. [3] Sensibly, at this late stage, Mr Young instructed counsel to represent him at the penalty hearing. Ms Don...

4. Auckland Standards Committee v Hong [2014] NZLCDT 41 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...(not the seminars to which he had been directed). He also produced a receipt to confirm that he had made payments of his costs and fine on 12 June 2014. The Standards Committee filed an affidavit from Ms Pipe commenting on the timing of these responses, coming as they did one day after Mr Hong’s Attorney was contacted by the Society as to the period of suspension sought. [7] Mr Collins pointed to the fact that, in the course of the hearing before the Tribunal in April, the pra...

5. Wellington Standards Committee v Lester [2015] NZLCDT 23 [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...Her present senior partner expresses confidence in her abilities and by inference confidence in her integrity and the belief that the public can have trust in her such that there is no requirement to protect the profession. [19] The applicant has responsibly acknowledged the mitigating factors that have been advanced on behalf of the respondent. Its primary submission is that the number of charges (the most serious of which is misconduct) and the length of time over which the respo...

6. Wellington Standards Committee v Nalder [2015] NZLCDT 5 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...appropriate people in regards to the obtaining and leaking of confidential information pertaining to W’s private affairs from Simpson & Co law firm. (Signed complainant).” [26] This email was provided to the Law Society by Ms Nalder in her response to the complaint which was lodged on 27 November 2013. Ms Nalder, in her unchallenged evidence also sets out the threatening and stalking behaviour which she has suffered from the complainant, culminating in the calling of police...

7. [2006] NZEmpC AC 52/06 Simpsons Farms Ltd v Aberhart [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...I assess to be Mr Aberhart’s quiet and generally non-confrontational demeanour, the shock of this announcement caused him to go quiet. He did, nevertheless, say to Mr Simpson that it appeared that he was being made redundant. Mr Simpson’s response was that the company would advertise for the new drystock manager position, that this would happen about six months hence, that Mr Aberhart would be welcome to apply, and that “the best man” would get the job. Ms Green felt the...

8. Māori Trustee v Forde – Section 186 Block V Longwood Survey District (2013) 17 Te Waipounamu MB 152 (17 TWP 152) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...submissions counsel for the applicants addressed the effect of the Takutai Moana Act on the continued existence of the beach road. This issue had not been previously addressed and I granted leave for the respondent to file written submissions in response. [12] On 19 February 2013 I advised the parties that I intended to direct the Registrar to write to the SDC pursuant to section 69(2) of the Act to seek clarification whether the council intended to initiate formation of the beach...

9. Evesham v Auckland Standards Committee LCRO 136 / 2009 (5 November 2009) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...good reason exists under s 208(2) of the Act. Clearly the fact that information is privileged this may amount to such a good reason. [33] The fact that a solicitor may not claim privilege in respect of a demand of him or her to produce evidence in response to a professional complaint was determined by the English Court of Appeal in Parry-Jones v Law Society (1969) 1 Ch 1; [1966] 1 All ER 177. It is of note that the privilege in this case belongs to Mr Chesterfield and not to Mr D Ev...

10. Due North Trust v Gardner [2011] NZWHT Auckland 64 [pdf, 262 KB]

    ...The Tribunal does not accept this view and does not consider it is supported by the dicta of Venning J in Byron Ave concerning the need or lack thereof to require kickouts. [48] We do not understand Venning J to be saying inspectors bore no responsibility for checking that roof to wall junctions were weathertight. Rather that kickouts were not necessarily required and that the inspectors in Byron Ave were entitled to assume that a membrane upstand had been properly installed i...