Search Results

1. Waitangi Tribunal Annual Report Matariki 2022 to 2023 [pdf, 18 MB]

   THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL - ANNUAL REPORT MATARIKI 2022 – 2023 TE RŌPŪ WHAKAMANA I TE TIRITI O WAITANGI THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL PŪRONGO-Ā-TAU O TE MATARIKI 2022 KI 2023 ANNUAL REPORT MATARIKI 2022 – 2023 (24 JUNE 2022 – 14 JULY 2023) 2 TE RŌPŪ WHAKAMANA I TE TIRITI O WAITANGI - PŪRONGO-Ā-TAU O TE MATARIKI 2022 KI 2023 Mihi - Introduction 3 The Waitangi Tribunal – a snapshot 4 The members of the Waitangi Tribunal 5 The Waitangi Tribunal Unit 10 The Tribunal process 12 T

2. FIANZ-Submission.pdf [pdf, 13 MB]

   ...then have a forensic comparison. 2.2.1 FIANZ Assertion We would have expected the Police to take this matter of the hard disk very seriously and employ normal investigation techniques and not just state “indicating a likelihood” ( a nebulous statement) in the context of the seriousness of the charges. We consider the Coroner should reexamine this issue to prevent future deaths (PFD). 2 Part of Issue 15 ( see Appendix 2) 3 Search and Surveillance Act 2012, s 130(1). Maximum p...

3. [2022] NZEmpC 192 E Tū Inc v Rasier Operations BV [pdf, 483 KB]

   ...connected the customer with the driver, rather than the driver. The connection between Uber and the driver, and Uber and the customer, is reflected in the way in which soiling is dealt with. If a rider soils a vehicle during a ride, a driver can claim a cleaning fee. The cleaning fee is not recoverable by the driver directly from the rider. Rather the driver must seek recovery from Uber, which, in its sole discretion, determines whether to make such a payment and, if it does, Uber...

4. Sandy v Khan LCRO 181 / 2009 (25 December 2009) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...extremely hard” to put pressure on Mr YY and thereby Mr XX and indicating that if the matter was not resolved separate independent advice would be necessary. [18] On 14 October Mr Khan wrote to Mr YY putting him on notice that Ms Sandy was claiming against Mr XX in contract and in tort and proposing mediation. He indicated that if the dispute was not settled he would advise Ms Sandy to obtain independent legal advice and it would be more than likely that proceedings would be filed...

5. RV v ZL LCRO 85/2012 (23 May 2016) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...16 At [40]. 17 At [40]. 6 • The advice that Mr ZL had difficulty in collecting payment of fees where he had acted for Mr RV personally. • Mr ZL disclosed Mr RV had been a bankrupt. • Mr ZL claimed Mr RV was being advised by an unnamed lawyer. • Mr ZL misled NZLS by stating he had never acted for Mr RV in relation to [Company A]. • Mr ZL misled NZLS by omitting to advise he had acted for both parties in the transaction.

6. CM v RG LCRO 131/2012 (7 September 2015) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...speaking the rule is one in a series that constrain a party from seeking to rely on an undisclosed document in a proceeding, while preserving other parties’ access to evidence subject to the rules of evidence. Sub-rule (3) for example allows claims to privilege. Any claim to privilege can be subject to challenge. Challenges are determined under the Evidence Act by the judge in the proceeding and involve consideration of a range of factors driven overall by fairness. Arguments a...

7. Audit summary report [pdf, 609 KB]

   ...manages an audit programme for legal aid lawyers. This is part of the quality assurance framework for legal aid services under section 91 of the Legal Services Act 2011. The Ministry of Justice sets the number of audits to be completed in its annual Statement of Intent. Our target for the 2015-16 financial year was 70 or more audits; we completed 76. This was around 4% of the 1655 lead legal aid lawyers providing legal aid as at 30 June 2016. Legal aid lawyers are selected for audit u...

8. LCRO 167/2016 LQ v TM (13 May 2019) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...adverse finding was made, the observation was made that “the delays by the [lawyer] in responding to matters must be ‘excessive, repetitive and unjustifiable ... to amount to a breach of rule 10.1”.14 (b) Parties’ positions [66] Mr LQ claims that Mr TM did not reply to Mr JK’s 20 November 2015 letter, and 14, 18, and 23 December 2015 emails to Mr TM. In the emails, Mr JK requested, on behalf of Mr LQ, Mr JQ’s permission for an accountant to investigate the administrat...

9. LCRO 84/2020 WF v BP (11 June 2020) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...[57] The Complaints Service has confirmed that all communications with Mr WF had, during the course of the Committee’s investigation of the complaint, been conducted by email. [58] The authority relied on by Mr WF engaged a situation where a claim had been forwarded to a lawyer’s office in circumstances where the lawyer had not advised the claimant that the lawyer’s office was authorised to accept service of the documents. [59] Both the District and High Court Rules provide co...

10. [2016] NZEmpC 162 Broadspectrum v Nathan [pdf, 119 KB]

    ...“was and could only be” the evidence of Messrs Fleisher and Cresswell; 2. The Court misdirected itself and erred in relation to the significance of the acceptance by Broadspectrum (partway through the hearing of the Authority) of Mr Nathan’s claim and all the remedies sought by him, as set out in the Statement of Problem of 26 May 2013; and 3. The Court failed to address properly or at all the expressed basis of the Authority’s determination of 11 December 2015, which the...