Search Results

1. LCRO 209/2018 LY v RT (26 June 2019) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...Fees [13] The Committee noted that Mrs RT’s invoice was for less than $2,000 (exclusive of GST). It pointed out that reg 29 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008 does not permit inquiry into an invoice where GST exclusive fees are less than $2,000, unless there are special circumstances justifying otherwise. [14] The Committee noted the following: (a) Mrs RT promptly provided Ms LY with terms of engagement, w...

2. Holden v Hanns [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...installer. The surface pre- 7 treatment was also the responsibility of the installer. The installer was not properly trained. 25. The applicant says that Equus had a duty to ensure that only approved applicators and/or THERMEXX installers were permitted to install the Equus weathertight systems. It alleges that Equus failed to perform its representation that the system would be so installed and allowed an untrained applicator to install the cladding using Equus products. 26....

3. LCRO 144/2018 BG v NH (26 May 2020) [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...obligations of lawyers, which are set out in s 4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006.”20 4. The Committee paid no attention to the (acknowledged) fact that Mr NH had appeared in court for Mr BG in March and June 2017 and therefore was not permitted to continue without an instructing solicitor. 6. The “…Committee failed to consider all the issues of concern that were raised”.21 7. If the Committee had considered all of the material supplied it would not have reached...

4. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Tennet [2023] NZLCDT 20 (17 May 2023) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...solicitor for a period of 12 months commencing at 6pm on 22 June 2023 (pursuant to ss 242(1)(e) and 244 of the LCA). This period takes into account a number of matters which, on balance, we consider it in the public interest that Mr Tennet is permitted to continue to act for that limited period. 3. On return to practice, Mr Tennet shall be supervised as set out below by a senior practitioner who is accepted as appropriate by the Tribunal on recommendation of the New Zealand Law...

5. BX & HX v L Ltd [2024] NZDT 125 (10 April 2024) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...disputes the amount of compensation sought by BX and HX. As BX and HX have already received a refund from L Ltd for the cost of the return crossing on the Ferry, their claim falls to be considered under s32(c) of the CGA. Under s32(c) of the CGA, I am permitted to award damages to cover BX and HX’s reasonably foreseeable losses resulting from L Ltd’s failure to comply with the CGA. My findings in relation to each of the costs claimed by BX and HX are set out below. (a) Return flig...

6. [2018] NZEnvC 236 Strategic Property Advocacy Network (SPAN) v Auckland Council [pdf, 374 KB]

   ...of stock, fencing and pest plant/animal removal. None of the native vegetation on this property currently falls within an SEA and is therefore currently subject to animal grazing, with a number of pest plants present. (h) The location of the permitted building areas on the potential new lots is intended to ensure that any dwellings are integrated with the existing landscape. In particular, the building locations identified on figures 012.10.20 and 012.10.21 were sited so that...

7. [2022] NZEnvC 008 Pyle v Whangarei District Council [pdf, 991 KB]

   ...that the latest national guidance and best available information on the likely effects of climate change are considered within any risk assessment for coastal and flood hazards. Rules PREC15-R1 Principal Residential Unit Activity Status: Permitted Activity Status when compliance not Where: 1. The principal residential unit complies with LRZ-R15. 2. No more than eight principal residential units are constructed within PREC15. achieved: Non- complying PR...

8. LCRO 114/2022 WB v XD (22 July 2022) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...complaint, the Committee concluded that: 4 (a) the protection order was made following Mr WB’s guilty plea; and (b) Mr XD had discussed the order with Mr WB in the context of discussions concerning the circumstances in which Mr WB would be permitted to return to the family home; and (c) Mr WB had been present in court when the order was made and had received a copy of the order; and (d) the order contained specific information detailing Mr WB’s obligations, and inform...

9. ENVC Matiatia party corresp WMLFeb15 submission oppose DMI interlocutory [pdf, 2.5 MB]

   ...Environment Court such as Ayburn Farm Estates Urnited v Queenstown Lakes District Council!! and Brady v Napier City Council!2. 14. In Collins the High Court stated that: 13 'we accept that in the course of its hearing the Environment Court may permit the party which applied for planning permission to amend its application. but we do not accept that it may do so to an extent that the matter before it becomes in substance a different application." (my emphasis) 15. The...

10. Edgecombe - Estate of Taiawhio Waaka (2012) 19 Takitimu MB 165 (19 TKT 165) [pdf, 260 KB]

    ...the length of the relationship between the whāngai and the adopting parents, whether there has been an ohaki, the customary values and practices of the iwi or the hapū associated with the land in question and whether those values and practices permit a whāngai with or without a blood relationship to their mātua whāngai to take interests in land. (See for example In re Succession to George Tukua 116 Otorohanga MB 81) In the end, however, it is a judgment call to be made by the j...