Search Results

1. McLeod v McIver - Succession to Harai McIver (2019) 401 Aotea MB 58 (401 AOT 58) [pdf, 310 KB]

   ...will. They also note their previous correspondence recording their wish to establish and strengthen their Hohaia whakapapa connection to Ngāpuhi for the benefit of their uri and whanaunga. [15] On 26 April, Dixon McIver submitted an email in response to the letter from Lois and Eunice. The following day, he instructed the case manager to retract the email. 401 Aotea MB 62 [16] On 28 April, Latavinia McLeod (the executor) submitted a response on behalf of herself and...

2. LCRO 212/2015 KC v MZ (24 August 2018) [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...his application for review Mr KC says Mr MZ’s poor performance and crucial mistakes cost him his life savings and business. Mr KC wants compensation, justice and a refund of all the fees he paid to Mr MZ. [12] Mr KC is critical of Mr MZ’s responses after the hearing, which he considers demonstrate a lack of interest in his proceeding. He says Mr MZ did not advise him before the hearing that “the die was cast”, or that Mr KC had no chance of winning or obtaining a favourabl...

3. LCRO 198/2016 EN v LS (18 December 2018) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...obstructed most attempts at resolution by not responding or engaging, then attempting to delay the process of appointing new trustee and action he had previously recommended The Standards Committee determination [17] The Committee summarised Mr LS’ response to Ms EN’s complaints:1 14. … a. that the complainant is mistaken as to the extent of his involvement and knowledge of matters; b. that he sought the complainant’s consent before acting for [BG] on relationship matters;...

4. D-G Conservation - Supplementary - M J Brass - Planning (18 March 2021) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...particular configuration of habitat, species distribution, and abstraction point. Dr Dunn in response to his questions confirmed that that example is not generally applicable across Otago. I therefore do not consider that Mr de Pelsemaeker’s responses have actually addressed the issue, and the risk remains. 22. Mr de Pelsemaeker has opposed the relief sought in the D-G’s original submission, which was to apply banding or flow triggers to replace the priority system. I accept t...

5. LCRO 34/2020 KL v OP (4 August 2020) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...indeed this was agreed some two years ago So why hasn’t that happened? Regards OP [12] The footnote to that email indicates it was sent after 1 July 2018, which is consistent with a chronology supplied by Mr KL. [13] Although Mr KL lays responsibility at Mr OP’ feet, he also says he and Ms JS still have not settled their disputes over parenting or property. [14] The Committee was satisfied that Mr KL’s complaint related to “the decisions made by, or lack of action by...

6. LCRO 91/2020 LS v DV (29 July 2020) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...security. Complaint [8] Briefly, LS’s complaint is a request for an explanation and information from DV to enable the trustees to understand what happened in 2012. LS attached various documents in support. Practitioner’s Reply [9] DV’s response to LS’s complaint, dated 24 May 2019, is brief. He says: …The complaint consists of a narrative of facts as understood by the complainants, but there are no particulars of what I, as the lawyer complained against, have done th...

7. Template-Comprehensive-Whanau-Trust-Order-Final-Version-30-June-2020.doc [doc, 101 KB]

   ...beneficiaries of this Trust are [the Tipuna and] all of the descendants of the Tipuna (“the Beneficiaries”). Register of Beneficiaries 7.4 The Trustees must maintain a register of the names and contact details of the Beneficiaries. The Beneficiaries are responsible for providing to the Trustees their names and up to date contact details. Comment Box 1. If the Beneficiaries are all of the descendants of one or more tipuna (for example, mum and dad), then name those tipuna in clause 1.2....

8. Simmons v Board of Trustees of Newlands College (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 60 [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...the Human Rights Review Tribunal— (a) for a breach of Part 1A (other than a breach of Part 1A that is an enactment, or an act or omission authorised or required by an enactment or otherwise by law), against the person or persons alleged to be responsible for the breach: (b) for a breach of Part 1A that is an enactment, or an act or omission authorised or required by an enactment or otherwise by law, against the Attorney-General, or against a person or body referred to in section 3(b)...

9. Holden v Hanns [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...says that Equus accepted the representations contained in its literature and any other representations by specifying that the work was to be done by an approved applicator or by a THERMEXX installer. The surface pre- 7 treatment was also the responsibility of the installer. The installer was not properly trained. 25. The applicant says that Equus had a duty to ensure that only approved applicators and/or THERMEXX installers were permitted to install the Equus weathertight syste...

10. ZA v YB LCRO 39/2016 (15-February 2017) [pdf, 171 KB]

    ...make some comment about the uncertainties surrounding the identity of the person referred to by Kós J in the judgment and in Mr ZA’s complaint. [13] Mr ZA was uncertain if he had correctly named the lawyer referred to in the judgment. In his response to the complaint Mr YB said “I record that I did not take part in the subject determination by the XX Standards Committee”.6 [14] This statement is at odds with the acknowledgements by counsel for the Standards Committee that...