Search Results

1. Brichris Holdings Limited v Irmac Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2012] NZWHT Auckland 7 [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...above, I conclude Mr Neilson has discharged the heavy evidential burden that Mr Irwin‘s actions or omissions meet the threshold for the allegation of bad faith. The threshold for assessing substantial merit [36] In Trustees Executors13 Justice France held that: In policy terms, whilst one must be wary of establishing disincentives to the use of the important Resolution Service, one must also be wary of exposing other participants to unnecessary costs. The Act itself...

2. CAC302 v Mairs [2016] NZREADT 15 [pdf, 135 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZREADT 15 READT 078/14 IN THE MATTER OF charges laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (CAC 302) Prosecution AND JAMES DAVID MAIRS Defendant MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Judge P F Barber - Chairperson Mr G Denley - Member Ms N Dangen - Member SUBSTANTIVE CASE HEARD at AUCKLAND on 30 July 2015 DATE OF THE SUBSTANTIVE DECISION 4 September...

3. LCRO 194/2015+56/2016 TB v HN Ltd (12 June 2017) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...did, his plea for a reduction in the fine to go to the NZLS may well have been greeted with less enthusiasm. However, Mr TB says he has paid everything he owes AMINZ including the $7,000 fine. [43] Fairness is an essential aspect of natural justice, and is fundamental to the exercise of discretion under the Act. Viewed in totality, Mr TB is facing a total fine of 7 $14,500. That amount is only $500 short of the maximum that could be imposed pursuant to the Act. Although Mr...

4. Te Manutukutuku Issue 6 [pdf, 599 KB]

   ...Bishop, and in the same year, he organised the Pope's visit to Auckland. Later, he transferred to Kaikohe to become Cultural Officer for Tai Tokerau, a position he held until December last year. Waitangi Tribunal Division Department of Justice Newsletter ISSN 0114-717X Number 6 September 1990 New Tribunal member, William Macdonald (Mac) TayloriQSM Mac Taylor is closely involved with all things Maori, especially in the Tai Tokerau district. He sees himself as a co-ordinato...

5. LCRO 184/2021 PW v QM (21 March 2023) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...Henderson Reeves’ fees. The policy that the courts should not allow their proceedings to impinge on the procedures under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act for investigating the amounts payable for lawyers’ bills and the need to avoid a miscarriage of justice mean that the judgement of the District Court should not be relied upon as finally establishing the amount of Mrs Busch’s liability under Henderson Reeves’ bill. [32] The emphasis was on the amount of the bill, and Henderson...

6. VM v ND & HB LCRO 249/2012 (30 November 2015) [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...[12] The Committee reached the following findings:1 a. [Mr ND] Failed to provide adequate and timely client care information to Mr VM at the outset of the retainer… b. [Mr ND] Failed to keep Mr VM [adequately] informed of the progress of the matter… c. [Mr ND] Failed to obtain and follow Mr VM’s informed instructions on significant decisions in respect of the conduct of the litigation… d. [Mr ND] Failed to provide advice to Mr VM in writing, which (together with his wider co...

7. LCRO 100/2020 FT v D and O CM (9 June 2020) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...Review Officers is managed to be referred to as the Legal Complaints Review Office, the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 does not provide for the creation of a Legal Complaints Review Office. [18] Review Officers are appointed by the Minister of Justice, following consultation with the New Zealand Law Society.6 [19] Review Officers are appointed under a ministerial warrant. [20] A stated purpose of the Act is to provide for a more responsive regulatory regime in relation to law...

8. BORA Crimes (Reasonable Parental Control and Correction) Amendment Bill [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...force used raises the apprehension of bodily harm. 30. In applying Canadian Foundation to the New Zealand context, we have been mindful of the limitations around using s 6 as an interpretive tool. The role of s 6 was set forth succinctly by Justice Tipping in Hansen (addressing the difference between the New Zealand and United Kingdom contexts): […] the approach of the United Kingdom Courts appears to be more ‘adventurous’ than that in New Zealand. The same point could be...

9. Taufa v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlement) [2023] NZACC 154 [pdf, 246 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2023] NZACC 154 ACR 22/21 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN SIONE TAUFA Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 23 August 2023 Heard at: Wellington Appearances: Mr A Crabb for the Appellant (via AVL) Ms F Becroft for the Respondent Judgment: 19 September 2023 _______...

10. Kropelnicki v Wellington City Council (Strike-Out) [2021] NZHRRT 30 [pdf, 110 KB]

    ...consequence of the backlog of work in the Tribunal: See Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd (Delay) [2017] NZHRRT 8 at [2]. [11] At that teleconference, it was agreed that Mr Kropelnicki would file an amended statement of claim that confined itself to matters of discrimination and contained particulars of his claim for damages. Timetable directions were set out in the 6 August 2019 Minute requiring Mr Kropelnicki to file an amended statement of claim by 13 September 2019. [12] Three...