Search Results

1. Jones v ACC [2014] NZACA 17 [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...general principle of finality. It is available only where a substantial miscarriage of justice would result if fundamental error in procedure is not corrected and where there is no alternative effective remedy reasonably available. Without such response, public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined. [37] There may be cases where it is a close call whether recourse to the exceptional power is appropriate. This is not such a case. The system supplied by the C...

2. NT v Standards Committee LCRO 131/2014 (21 November 2014) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...Judge did not speculate as to the reasons for their lack of understanding. The complainants took some time trying to engage Mr NT in discussions after they had digested the reserved judgment and Ruling on Quantum and Costs. Having received no response they considered satisfactory they laid a complaint to the New Zealand Law Society. The complaint [17] The complaint is dated 15 August 2013, and alleges negligent advice, representation, including reliance on the wrong law, the wro...

3. Punjab Knoll Body Corporate v Wellington City Council & Ors [2014] NZWHT Auckland 9 [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...to determine whether the Council has proven its claim for quantum against each respondent. THE POSITION OF NZHICWL [10] The NZHICWL has taken no steps at all in the proceedings. It has not filed any documents, evidence, statement of response or appeared at any of the procedural conferences. There was no appearance by or on its behalf at the hearing held in Wellington on 15 April 2014. 4 POSITION OF MR BLUNDELL [11] Mr Blundell was one of the six origina...

4. Maruera v Te Runanga o Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Trust (2017) 378 Aotea MB 118 (378 AOT 118) [pdf, 389 KB]

   ...Maru (Taranaki) Fisheries Trust. An election of trustees was held on 5 May 2011. Subsequently on 21 September 2011 I appointed Paul Carr, Maria Kīngi, Cynthia Kīngi Brown, Ron Puata, Rangi Tapatu, Tamzyn Rose Pue and Christopher Manukonga as responsible trustees along with Michael Koopu and Jan Mātuku as advisory trustees. At that time I dismissed the applications before the Court and directed that a new application be generated by the Registrar for the trustees to attend the nex...

5. LCRO 212/2016 LMN Law v HR [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...decisions. [24] The Committee then addressed the second issue raised by Mr LM:14 … whether any of the statements made in that confidential communication are such that they “cross the line of impropriety” to such an extent that a disciplinary response is warranted. [25] After considering the first statement complained about by Mr LM, the Committee said:15 In the circumstances of the exchange the SC does not believe that the Respondent “crossed the line of impropriety” in h...

6. Annual report IPT 2016/2017 [pdf, 768 KB]

   ...Treadwell. I thank the Ministry of Justice staff who undertake the administrative functions of the Tribunal. They have shown cheerful commitment and conscientious dedication to their work, and have helped to make the Tribunal function efficiently and responsibly. I am especially grateful to the Tribunal’s Operations Manager, Jessie Henderson, for her unfailing support and assistance. I thank the Tribunal’s Jurisdiction Manager, Minja Pesic, for her expertise and conscientious w...

7. Chalecki v ACC [2012] NZACA 16 [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...Reviewer refused to accept any new review applications because, not surprisingly, he was not certain they were within the scope of the Corporation’s decision letters. Instead, he adjourned the hearing so that the Corporation could consider its response to the new issues and directed both parties to file further submissions if there was no resolution. [24] The Corporation maintained the objection to jurisdiction and Mr Brady filed further submissions.6 After recording the Review...

8. AR v ZE LCRO 83/2012 (2 April 2014) [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...says it is the firm’s usual practice to use window envelopes, but on this occasion it was not her, but someone else at the firm, who handwrote the envelope in question without adding the ARs’ names. [9] There is no evidence that Ms ZE was responsible, or had any direct control over anyone else who may have been responsible, for a breach of the ARs’ privacy. While any breach of privacy is regrettable, that aspect of the ARs’ complaint will therefore not be considered furth...

9. Li v The Real Estate Agents Authority NZREADT 10 [pdf, 346 KB]

   ...discussions about the agreement to be explained to Ms Li in her native tongue. [5] Apart from the First Respondent there were other people involved in the events leading up to the ASAP and who were also parties to the complaint. The agent who had responsibility for supervising the First Respondent was Ms Kyung Sun (Sunny) Chae, the Second Respondent. She was also present at the key meeting at which the agreement for sale and purchase was entered into. [6] There is a further lin...

10. Taurua - Estate of Piatarihi Taurua [2018] Chief Judge's MB 108 (2018 CJ 108) [pdf, 335 KB]

    ...0.072 0.0477 d) If objections are received, then the matter be referred to the Court for directions. Procedural History [6] On 27 July 2016 the Registrar’s Report and Recommendation was distributed to all affected parties, with written responses or objections to the report to be filed with the Court no later than 24 August 2016. [7] The filing of written responses or objections was subsequently extended to 23 September 2016. [8] On 1 September 2016 an objection letter...