14230 items matching your search terms
...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Discussion 6 At [28]....
...impose a sanction for non- compliance.10 In this case I consider a fine is the appropriate sanction and that is consistent with the submission made by Mr Mathews, advocate for the plaintiff, at the hearing. In Peter Reynolds the Court of Appeal indicated that a range of factors will be relevant in assessing the level of a fine. Those factors include the nature of the default (deliberate or wilful), whether it is repeated, without excuse or explanation, and whether it is on...
...decisions which had involved breach of undertakings, firstly to establish that the offence of misconduct had been committed rather than the negligence or unsatisfactory conduct alternatives. In particular we were referred to the dicta of the Court of Appeal in W v Auckland Standards Committee 3 of the New Zealand Law Society,1 [17] At paragraph 48 the Court said: where at paragraph 47 the importance of undertaking was reaffirmed by the Court. “There may be cases where a breac...
...raised until very late in the day and was in fact not raised at all in the rent review process itself (which appears to have been finally resolved by agreement). It is fair to say that the point is a highly technical one. [14] The Court of Appeal has stated that a lawyer is not liable "for mistake in a nice and difficult point of law but he must measure up to the degree of professional competence which would be exercised by the reasonably competent and careful solicitor in...
...to be a breach of the Act irrespective of what knowledge ZXX Ltd may or may not have had at the time it made the representation. [8] There appears to have been considerable discussion at the first hearings of this claim and the subsequent appeal in relation to the applicability of the shipping labels and the two per cent allowance for impurities noted on them. The applicability of the labels was also discussed at today’s hearings and I had the benefit of hearing from Mr JN, a...
...the Court lacked jurisdiction, and adjournments and delays associated with changes of counsel. [12] It was reasonable, given the nature of the interests involved, for the applicant to put a concerted effort into the application. As the Court of Appeal observed in Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd, the proposition that costs must not be disproportionate to the monetary value of the successful party’s judgment is too absolute: 3 …both in itself and certainly in a case where justified...
...no more than $45,000 plus GST of the costs actually incurred by the defendant can properly be regarded as reasonable. Proportion of reasonable costs which the plaintiff ought to pay [16] In accordance with the guidelines set by the Court of Appeal, I take as a starting point an award of costs of two thirds of $45,000, that is $30,000. I disregard GST on the assumption that the defendant is GST registered and will already have recovered the whole of the GST component of its costs...
...without the consent of any person being required, be laid out – (a) Over any other Māori land...” On the face of it this provision appears to say exactly what it means, that consent of the owners is not required. However in the Court of Appeal judgment in Coles and Ors v Miller and Ors at paragraph 43 the Court says: “We can accept that it would have been a breach of natural justice if the Court had made a roadway order without either obtaining the consent of someone who...
...ability, experience, and knowledge of the individual or body; and (b) shall not appoint an individual or body unless it is satisfied that the appointment of that individual or body would be broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries. [10] The Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana is the leading authority on the interpretation of s222.5 In that case the Court observed:6 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the...
...or refusal to act must be more than a one-off instance. What constitutes repeatedly is to be judged in context with a focus on the nature of the refusal. 3 Henderson v Brooking – Wharekahika A47 [2023] Māori Appellate Court MB 17 (2023 APPEAL 17) at [28]. 4 Nikora v Trustees of Tuhoe - Tuhoe Te Uru Taumatua Trust (2021) 252 Waiariki MB 157 (252 WAR 157) at [69]. 5 Above n 3, at [28]. 487 Aotea MB 81 Kua tāruarua whakakahoretia a Mr McDonald i ngā mahi? Has Mr...