Search Results

1. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 1 v Jacobsen [2021] NZLCDT 18 (25 May 2021) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...109, referring to Dentice v Valuers Registration Board [1992] 1 NZLR 720, 724 – 725. 9 Pillai v Messiter (1989) 16 NSWLR 197. 10 Pillai v Messiter (1989) 16 NSWLR 197, 200. 9 [30] Kirby J’s dicta was adopted by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Complaints Committee No 1 of the Auckland District Law Society v C where it was held that intentionality is not a necessary ingredient of misconduct. The Court stated: While intentional wrongdoing by a practitioner may well be su...

2. Rika v Williams - Torere Section 33 (2018) 189 Waiariki MB 139 (189 WAR 139) [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?search=sw_096be8ed8170b93d_222_25_se&p=1&id=DLM381179 189 Waiariki MB 146 [26] The leading authority regarding the appointment of trustees is the decision of the Court of Appeal in Clarke v Karaitiana, which noted:7 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the ability, experience and knowledge of the individual concerned. In considerin...

3. Clearwater Cove Apartments Body Corporate 170989 v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 39 [pdf, 389 KB]

   ...RESIDENTIAL UNIT OWNERS IN A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT? [23] Ms Thodey submitted that the Council did not owe a duty of care to residential owners in a mixed commercial/residential development. However, since this claim was heard the Court of Appeal considered this issue in North Shore City Council v Body Corporate 207624 (Spencer on Byron).6 [24] In Spencer on Byron the application for building consent referred to the ―Byron Avenue hotel‖ and described it as a hotel/a...

4. [2017] EmpC 124 Sunair Aviation v Walters [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...justified on financial grounds; 7 At [29]. 8 At [30], citing Hally Labels Ltd v Powell [2015] NZEmpC 92. 9 At [64]. 10 At [66]. 11 At [89]. 12 At [93]. 13 The application refers to an “appeal” but a challenge is meant. (b) Mr Walters’ challenge will require all the evidence in the Authority to be traversed, even on the limited basis on which the challenge is made; (c) The delay in filing a challenge is les...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 58 Evolution E-Business Ltd v Smith [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...various email exchanges between the parties which indicated some frustration on his part in resolving the costs issue because Evolution had changed its legal representation and was obtaining a second opinion as to whether or not it would file an appeal in the matter. [4] On 13 October 2011, a memorandum was filed on behalf of the plaintiff with respect to the issue of costs. It confirmed that Evolution had changed its legal representation to Russell McVeagh and that Mr Skelton ha...

6. GL v JS LCRO 289/2013 (30 October 2014) [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...the LCRO considers that the Review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [29] In Deliu v Hong the High Court made the following observation about the role of the LCRO:6 In my view the power of review is much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his...

7. Lee v Wellington City Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 31 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...Baragwanath J. [16] In Hartley v Balemi,4 Stevens J concluded that personal involvement does not necessarily mean the physical work needs to be undertaken by a director but may include administering the construction of the building. The Court of Appeal in Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor5 has also more recently considered director liability and analysed the reasoning in Trevor Ivory Limited v Anderson.6 It held that the assumption of responsibility test promoted in that case w...

8. RB v CG LCRO 117/2013 (30 June 2014) [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...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 2 Stated verbally at the review hearing on 10 June 2014. 4 on any particular review and the extent of the investigati...

9. Complaints Assessment Committee 403 v Zhang [2018] NZREADT 30 [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...hearing is required, a telephone conference will be arranged so that appropriate orders may be made as to filing submissions. [51] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. __________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson __________________ Mr G Denley Member ________...

10. The Maori Trustee v Brightwell - Kaipakopako 2C2 (2016) 354 Aotea MB 226 (354 AOT 226) [pdf, 287 KB]

    ...(78 AOT 31) 3 87 Aotea MB 58-59 (87 AOT 58-59) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM292141#DLM292141 354 Aotea MB 228 [8] In the Proprietors of Mangakino Township v The Māori Land Court the Court of Appeal discussed in the Court’s extensive powers on a review of a trust: 4 [19] We entirely agree with McGechan J that a review of the trust cannot sensibly be conducted unless the Court pays some regard to its performance — how well...