Search Results

1. DL v WR & WQ LCRO 39 / 2011 (29 September 2011) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...initial contact with ABL Legal was with Mr WR whose role after handing the file to Mr WQ was one of overview. He was not present at the Court. 8 [48] Mr DL however points out that he included Mr WR in various emails, and inasmuch as he was responsible for supervising Mr WQ, he is equally as culpable as Mr WQ. [49] That does not correctly express the position in professional disciplinary matters. There is no vicarious liability for another‟s actions. The complaint that co...

2. Shrewsbury v Rothesay LCRO 99 / 2009 (13 November 2009) [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. A central purpose of that Act is to protect the consumers of legal services and conveyancing services (s 3). In seeking to attain that purpose s 3(2) proceeds to state that it intends to provide a more responsive regulatory regime in relation to lawyers and conveyancers. I also observe that s120 of the Act sets out the purposes of Part 7 of the Act (Complaints and Discipline) which include the provision of system in which complaints can...

3. Body Corporate 180379 v Auckland Council [2013] NZWHT Auckland 6 [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...Statutory provisions for the withdrawal of claims. [21] Claims under both the 2002 and 2006 Acts are divided into two stages, the pre-adjudication stage and the adjudication stage. The pre- adjudication stage is managed by the Department or Ministry responsible for housing. This stage is relatively informal. It commences when the owner of a dwellinghouse applies for an assessor’s report. This is the “claim”. If the claim meets certain eligibility criteria, an assessor’...

4. 2017 Report of the Registrar of the Environment Court [pdf, 674 KB]

   ...determining cases. The Court’s Judicial Resources Manager co-ordinates the Court’s sitting programme. This follows directions from the Principal Environment Judge who, pursuant to s 251(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), is responsible for ensuring the orderly and expeditious discharge of the business of the Court. 1.4 The Court’s Jurisdiction The Environment Court is established by section 247 of the RMA as a Court of record. It is a specialist court...

5. LCRO 19/2016 OW v PG (29 September 2017) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...[11] Mr PG advises:3 In the light of Ms MT’s email, Mrs [TL] then contacted Mr OW on the same day to discuss matters and in particular to discuss whether [LMN] wished to discontinue its claim. [12] There is some dispute as to what Mr OW’s responses to Ms SE were, but no clear instructions to [AR & Co] were provided. [13] Subsequently, Mr OW wrote to Ms SE, raising the issues that were the subject matter of his complaints. Mr OW’s complaints [14] Mr OW’s complain...

6. Ngati Hine Forest Trust v Manihera - Ngati Hine H2B(2010) 12 Taitokerau MB 176 (12 TTK 176) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...deliberately confrontational. b) The trust and TPL 4 had gone to some lengths to talk through issues with Mr Manihera, without success. The application for an injunction was justified. The trust has acted reasonably throughout. c) Mr Manihera’s response to the injunction was improper, vexatious and frivolous. He failed to attend the first Court hearing and then sought the advice of persons other than legal counsel which lead to the filing of convoluted and incomprehensible su...

7. Richards - Karaka Huarua A and B (2010) 10 Taitokerau MB 94 (10 TTK 94) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...The meetings are to be jointly advertised in the Northern Advocate on at least two occasions not less than 14 days before the meetings. (c) The venue is to be the Tuparehuia Marae, unless the parties agree otherwise. (d) The persons primarily responsible for organising the meetings of owners are Mr Robert Carpenter and Mr Wero Karena. (e) Two separate but consecutively held meetings are to take place for Karaka Huarua B and Karaka Huarua A (in that order). Minutes are to be k...

8. DG v YT Ltd [2014] NZDT 566 (19 May 2014) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...The Tribunal hereby orders that the applicants’ claim be dismissed Facts [1] On 23 February 2010, DG’s daughter, BB, collided with a truck whilst performing a u- turn in her parent’s Ford Focus outside her school at lunchtime. [2] BB was responsible for the collision. The total loss suffered by the DGs exceeded $20,000.00. The DGs paid approximately $12,000.00 for repairs to the truck, and their car suffered damage of over $8,000.00. [3] The DGs sought cover for this loss...

9. [2013] NZEmpC 246 Dunn v Waitemata DHB [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...2008, the WDHB sought clarification from Mr Ryan as to the “barriers” that the plaintiff sought resolution upon. Unfortunately at this stage there were delays in Mr Dunn responding to the WDHB in a timely manner through Mr Ryan. [11] No response was initially provided to the letter of 19 September 2008, seeking the clarification. On 13 October 2008 the WDHB again wrote to Mr Ryan informing him that if Mr Dunn did not provide the information requested by 20 October 2008 the...

10. JO v QP LCRO 18 / 2011 (27 August 2012) [pdf, 118 KB]

    ...actual repair costs $200,000.00 legal costs $80,000.00 Court costs $200,000.00 unemployment compensation [65] In addition, JO seeks that charges of perjury be brought against QP. Perjury is a criminal offence and it is the Police who are responsible for the prosecution of criminal charges. JO has approached the Police, but they have declined to pursue the matter. This Office has no jurisdiction to promote the laying of charges of perjury. [66] Therefore, even if there had...