Search Results

1. [2016] NZEmpC 142 Leota v The CE of the Ministry of Social Development [pdf, 279 KB]

   ANDREW LEOTA v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 142 [3 November 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 142 EMPC 69/2016 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN ANDREW LEOTA Plaintiff AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Defendant Hearing: 27 July 2016 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances...

2. Aylesbury v Milton LCRO 61 / 2009 (31 July 2009) [pdf, 36 KB]

   ...arranging for that bankruptcy notice to be issued and served the respondents acted in breach of their professional obligations and were using the procedure to cause him embarrassment and distress and therefore not for its proper purpose. [2] The matter was considered by the Wellington Standards Committee 2 which resolved to take no action on the complaint. It considered that the existence of an unsatisfied judgement was proper grounds for the issue of a bankruptcy notice and th...

3. ENVC paper Wuhan University China study tour 2015 [pdf, 587 KB]

   ...prosecutions under the RMA (more on this in Question 4). [2] Environment Court decisions are subject to appeal in the High Court on points of law only; that is, there is no right of appeal on findings or assessments of factual issues and findings on matters of expert (eg scientific) opinion. There are provisions in the Act for appeals above the High Court, to the Court of Appeal and ultimately the Supreme Court, all subject to leave being granted. All of this comprises a significant...

4. ZA v YB LCRO 135/2014 (31 August 2016) [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...an own motion investigation into the respondent when that was completely besides the point, the real issue being whether or not his previous complaints against me (save for one which was upheld), were improper; c. The Committee breached natural Justice in failing to give reasons why the respondent “had shown a sufficient basis for making the complaints against” me and/or “had not acted in bad faith”; d. The Committee failed to take into account that the respondent continue...

5. Case management memorandum of counsel for Auckland Council 17 July 2018 [pdf, 421 KB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) AND IN THE MATTER of a direct referral application under section 87G of the RMA for resource consents for the necessary infrastructure and related activities associated with holding the America’s Cup in Auckland BETWEEN PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND (ENV-2018-AKL-000078) Applicant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Regulatory Authority CASE MANAGEMENT MEMORA...

6. TB v NX LCRO 80 / 2011 (13 December 2012) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...raised the jurisdictional issue. He also noted that the Committee had not called for a costs assessor’s report. [17] At its hearing on 17 September 2010 the Standards Committee resolved to call for a report by a costs assessor and adjourned the matter until the report was available. [18] The costs assessor’s report was provided on 3 February 2011. In this report, the assessor referred to “the paucity of information supplied by Mr NX” and noted that the only reference to ti...

7. [2022] NZEnvC 186 Blue Wallace Surveyors Limited v Waikato District Council [pdf, 422 KB]

   Perjuli & Blue Wallace v Waikato District Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2022] NZEnvC 186 IN THE MATTER OF two appeals under cl 14 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN BLUE WALLACE SURVEYORS LIMITED (ENV-2022-AKL-045) PERJULI DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (ENV-2022-AKL-053) Appellants AND WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Chief Environment Court Judge D A Kirkpatrick...

8. LCRO 46/2016 Richard Zhao v Yu Sun and Li Wang (7 May 2020) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...lapsed.”5 [15] The Committee “was particularly concerned that Mr Zhao failed to advise the complainants that their security had been lost”6 and that “Mr Zhao appears to have begun to conceal the truth from his clients by misrepresenting matters”.7 [16] In this regard the Committee was referring to a telephone call which the respondents say they received from a junior solicitor in the firm on 24 April 2015 urging them to resolve the dispute and assuring them that the caveat...

9. [2023] NZEmpC 69 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 292 KB]

   ALLAN HALSE v EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY [2023] NZEmpC 69 [2 May 2023] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2023] NZEmpC 69 EMPC 406/2021 IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for strike out of proceedings AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for a stay AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for security of costs BETW...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Harder [2022] NZLCDT 29 (23 August 2022) [pdf, 150 KB]

    NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2022] NZLCDT 29 LCDT 001/22 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 Applicant AND JUSTIN CHRISTOPHER HARDER Respondent CHAIR Ms D Clarkson MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Hon P Heath QC Ms S Hughes QC Prof D Scott Ms S Stuart HEARING 29 July 2022 HELD AT Specialist Courts and Tribunals Centre, Auckland DATE...