Search Results

1. Stender v Evans - Tokata A15 (2006) 75 Ruatoria MB 214 (75 RUA 214) [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...that they did not talk to the whanau first. The Evans Whanau have told Mr Trevor Evans that the title to the land is sacrosanct but that he should explore ways of building the enterprise on his land to ensure the well-being of his family is taken care of, particularly now that he is so ill. I note no health certification was produced to support the proposition as put regarding the state of Mr Evans' health. [20] Mr Evans submitted that his brother, would not have applied to hav...

2. BORA Parole Amendment Bill [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...earlier review, meant that detention had become arbitrary.[11] 7. I consider that the following safeguards ensure that the proposed increases in the maximum interval between parole reviews and the maximum duration of a postponement order should protect an offender from arbitrary detention beyond their parole eligibility date: 7.1 The Board has discretion over the length of the actual interval between parole reviews,[12] including when making postponement orders,[13] and is req...

3. OIA-109319.pdf [pdf, 1.9 MB]

   ...figure exists. Therefore, I am refusing this part of your request under section 18(e) as the information does not exist. In response to the last part of your request, I am withholding this information in full under section 9(2)(f)(iv) of the Act, to protect the confidentiality of advice tendered to Ministers and officials. In withholding information under section 9, the Ministry has considered the public interest and does not consider it outweighs withholding the information at this...

4. [2019] NZEnvC 146 Awaroa Aerodrome Ltd v Tasman District Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...dependent on detailed and contestable assessments of the underlying factual and legal issues. Instead of referring the matter to Council's lawyers for further advice it issued an infringement notice which forced Awaroa to file this appeal to protect its position.17 [20] Awaroa contends that this appeal would have been avoided if the Council had acted in a reasonable manner. Section 285 RMA [21] Under s285 RMA, the court may order any party to proceedings before it to pay to...

5. TX & UX v XC Ltd [2024] NZDT 440 (1 May 2024) [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...permissible margin is fact dependent. 33. In this case I consider an overrun of 21% to be unreasonable for the following reasons: a. XC Ltd accepted that it had underestimated the original figure. While an estimate is not a fixed price or a quote, care must still be taken in providing figures that a reasonably accurate and which a consumer relies upon; b. XC Ltd expressed confidence in its pricing in a situation where it was aware of two lower quotes for the work. I accept XC Ltd...

6. [2017] NZEmpC 46 Davidson v Great Barrier Airlines Ltd [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantial security may, in effect, prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. An order having that effect should be made only after careful consideration and in a case in which the claim has little chance of success. Access to the courts for a genuine plaintiff is not lightly to be denied. [16] Of course, the interests of defendants must also be weighed. They must b...

7. GH v UF LCRO 22 / 2011 (9 November 2011) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...always sent to the Applicant‟s lawyer. The Practitioner did not represent the Applicant and did not have direct contact with him. [29] The Applicant had legal representation throughout. It was the responsibility of the Applicant‟s lawyer to protect his interests. This was not the responsibility of the Practitioner who acted for the party on the other side of a transaction. If the Practitioner subsequently advanced a position contrary to an earlier position, then it is to be...

8. LCRO Annual Report 2019 [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...to 30 June 2019. The Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) operates under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. The primary purposes of the Act are to maintain public confidence in the provision of legal and conveyancing services, and to protect consumers of such services. The specific role of the LCRO is to independently review decisions made by the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) and the New Zealand Society of Conveyancers (NZSC) Standards Committees on complaints agains...

9. Establishment of Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal 30 January 2018 [pdf, 412 KB]

   ...27. This approach is more limited than the courts, which have full discretion to award costs and expense, but: 6 27.1. allows the Tribunal to consider awarding costs as a way of encouraging parties to focus on quick resolution; and 27.2. protects claimants against exposure to a high financial risk, possibly making filing with the Tribunal more attractive to some claimants. 28. This approach is consistent with provisions in tribunals such as the Disputes Tribunal and the We...

10. Powerpoint NZLS Workshop - HOW TO RUN A RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CASE [pdf, 815 KB]

    ...multidisciplinary teams of experts – Role of lawyer – advocate – Role of expert – objective / impartial expert – Planners should not become advocates – Lawyers role critical • The Application – Application needs to be prepared very carefully – Prescribed forms – Needs to reflect strategy – Make sure it covers everything client needs to do – Cannot get what you do not apply for! – Arapata Trust v Auckland Council • AEE – Section 88 / Schedule 4 set...