Search Results

1. Soulsby v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2024] NZACC 31 [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...Corporation take a pragmatic approach and accept that Mr Soulsby met the test for incapacity required under section 105 of the Act, without requiring further occupational and medical assessment. The Corporation proceeded to obtain the further information required to pay Mr Soulsby backdated weekly compensation. [23] On 25 November 2021, the Corporation obtained bank account and tax details from Mr Soulsby. [24] On 14 December 2021, the Corporation completed IRD checks for pre- an...

2. Tomov v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 34 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...Defect 3b- The junctions between joinery jambs and cladding are not adequately sealed. g) Defect 4b- The vertical control joints are not installed over a double stud. h) Defects 5- The cladding junctions at external corners are incorrectly formed. i) Defect 6- The polystyrene inter-storey band is not textured coated. j) Defect 7- The two sections of the “h” mould to the inter- storey control joint are not adequately joined or sealed. [26] The experts all agreed tha...

3. LCRO 34/2023 PI v SY (27 June 2024) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...appeal. [15] Mr SY issued Mr PI with his invoice on 21 September 2021. The invoice was rendered in the sum of $20,000 plus GST. [16] Mr PI responded to the invoice with immediate complaint that Mr SY had failed to competently represent him. Mr PI informed Mr SY that if he did not receive a full refund of all fees paid, a complaint would be filed with the New Zealand Law Society. The complaint and the Standards Committee decision [17] Mr PI lodged a complaint with the New Zealand La...

4. [2015] NZEnvC 137 Tram Lease v Auckland Transport and Auckland Council [pdf, 813 KB]

   ...case to be adjoUlned so that some sort of negotiation could take place. This notion was stoutly resisted by AT, on the understandable basis that a public body is strictly constrained by legislation in the extent to which it can offer money or other forms of compensation. AT's stance was that the Requirement should now either stand or fall; and that there was no basis established by Tram Lease and CJM for the latter. As will be seen, our decision is that the Requirement should be...

5. Haddon v Rahui Te Kuri Inc – Pakiri R (1994) 3 Taitokerau Appellate MB 178 (3 APWH 178) [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...respect of Pakiri R Block and Rahui Te Kuri Incorporation which are still before the Maori Land Court at Whangarei. In the course of those proceedings the Lower Court issued an order of injunction restraining the present owners of the Pakiri R Block (formerly the land of the Incorporation) from dealing with the land. An appeal against that order of injunction was to be heard at the conclusion of the hearing of this case stated and the parties represented by Messrs Peters and Bell are the partie...

6. [2015] NZEnvC 191 Tram Lease v Auckland Transport and Auckland Council [pdf, 2.9 MB]

   ...TraR5~9rtRequiring Authority Designation Conditions - NoR 1, 2,4, 5 and 6 Condition NoR Condition Number Applies to DEFINITIONS ~-~--~-------,------ ------------- - 1 2 4 5 6 Consult Consulting Consultation The process of providing information about the construction works, and receiving for consideration, information from stakeholders, directly affected and affected in proximity parties, regarding those effects and proposals for the management and mitigation of them.

7. Umuhuri Matahaere - Evidence in Chief [pdf, 7.6 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Auckland Registry ENV 2015 AKL 0000134 IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal under Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act TRUSTEES OF MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST Appellant BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF UMUHURI MATEHAERE ON BEHALF OF MOTITI ROHE - MOANATRUST 25th October 2017 Counsel Acting RB Enright Barrister Level 1, Stanbeth House · 28 Customs S

8. LCRO 96/2017 AA v BB (29 November 2019) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...understood that if the mortgagee’s lawyer did not attend in person then settlement would not proceed. Late in the afternoon of 16 January, Ms CC ascertained, from her own enquiries, that the mortgagee’s lawyer would not be attending. She informed Mr AA who did not tell her that, having arranged the force limit, the mortgagee’s lawyer’s attendance was no longer required. [10] Settlement did not proceed on 16 January 2015. [VOI] cancelled the agreement at 5:15 PM that day....

9. [2014] NZEmpC 180 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...attempt to try and reach an agreement. The plaintiff, Ms Lynne Snowdon, instructed Mr Greenwood, a solicitor who had not been involved in the litigation before me, to have discussions with counsel for the defendant, Mr Quigg, and I have been informed of the nature of the negotiations that then ensued. Unfortunately, but perhaps not surprisingly, the parties were unable to reach agreement. [3] Subsequently, detailed submissions were filed on behalf of each party (the defendant...

10. Coxon v New Zealand Law Society [2010] NZLCDT 1 [pdf, 240 KB]

    ...P N Collins on behalf of the Respondent 2 DECISION ON APPLICATION Introduction [1] This is an application by Melanie Jane Coxon, of Auckland, Barrister, for an order consenting to her employment of Christopher Lloyd Harder, a former practitioner. Mr Harder was the subject of an order striking him off the role of barristers and solicitors of the High Court of New Zealand in February 2006. [2] The application is made under the provisions of the Lawyers and Con...