Search Results

1. Hunstanton v Gretna LCRO 27 / 2010 (13 July 2010) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...as a customary term of the retainer in the absence of specific agreement to the contrary. [49] A lawyer who intends to impose a premium which would be unexpected to a reasonable client will have to establish as a matter of contract that this is permitted as well as having to establish as a matter of professional conduct that the fee reached is fair and reasonable. It will be difficult to do so if the client was not on notice of a method of billing which is other than the usual time...

2. The Property Group – Awapuni 1F3 (2016) 56 Tairawhiti MB 56 (56 TRW 56) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...did not hear any arguments from the parties regarding these points or the relevance or otherwise of the Preamble of the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 and s 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 which provides that: Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. [41] One view might be that the Crown must act in conformity with Treaty principles. Airways has known for some time that the potential...

3. Z v D LCRO 4 / 2008 (23 April 2009) [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...Act gives no guidance (as was the case in Bell). Rather the Act, by a flaw of drafting, excludes these particular costs complaints from the scope of the Act. [17] I have also considered whether the provisions of the Interpretation Act 1999 permit me to read the legislation as preserving the rights to a costs revision under the Law Practitioners Act 1982. In particular s 17 of the Interpretation Act 1999 provides that “[t]he repeal of an enactment does not affect … an existing...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 226 Davis v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...actions being contrary to that memorandum and about what he said would be the substantial disadvantage inflicted on him. He complained that a transfer to Christchurch was the only location allowed for by Police management in July 2010 which would permit him to continue to meet his financial obligations, although his duties, environment and lifestyle would be substantially altered. The email letter concluded: Please be advised that this is a further grievance to that which is curre...

5. TC & TD v NV LCRO 255 / 2011 (14 January 2013) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...fees in respect of the sale being deducted. Whilst therefore NV’s deduction of any fees did not conform with the decision in A v Z, nevertheless, TC has implicitly accepted that position. However, deduction of fees for other matters was not permitted for the reason held by the Standards Committee and by virtue of the subsequent LCRO decision. [38] Consequently, the finding of unsatisfactory conduct in this regard is confirmed. [39] TC has objected to the fact that no penalty...

6. [2023] NZEnvC 088 Barr Family Trust v Wakatane District Council [pdf, 450 KB]

   ...the site by 12:30 am. (b) All other events (including events for up to 50 people): 7:30 am to 10:00 pm Monday to Sunday inclusive, with all guests to leave the site by 10:30 pm. “A” Amended Consent Conditions (clean) Noise 14. Except as permitted under condition 22, all activities on site must be designed and conducted so that noise from the activities as measured at any point within the notional boundary of any dwelling, where an affected person’s approval has not been lodged wi...

7. [2012] NZEmpC 176 Te One A Mara Ltd v Olsen [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...that the interest factor took the total amount of the award to $4,086.85 which exceeded the Calderbank offer. The defendant’s claim for costs was based on the submission that the inclusion of interest, “only just, and in the most nominal way, permitted the plaintiff to claim the total judgment at trial exceeded the amount referred to in the Calderbank offer.” 38 Judge Travis concluded: 39 [20] The defendant cannot rely upon its Calderbank offer to obtain a costs order a...

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

   ...considering applications for resource consent, the councils (and the Environment Court if there are appeals) have potentially to consider several different levels of activity status, as prescribed in the regional or district plans. These levels are “permitted”, “controlled”, “restricted discretionary”, “discretionary,” “non-complying” and “prohibited.” Generally speaking, the lower down that list an activity status is, the harder it will be to get consent. I...

9. [2018] NZEmpC 93 Jacks Hardware and Timber Ltd v First Union Inc [pdf, 360 KB]

   ...facilitator seemed to take little notice of that distinction without outlining why that was. [83] Mr Cranney said that this was a clear reference to statements made by the company in facilitation, and that the Union would contest this but is not permitted to do so. [84] Mr Upton submitted this was a reference to statements made outside the facilitation. I disagree, since the witness intends to go on and say the facilitator took little notice of the point being made by the compa...

10. [2017] NZEnvC 154 W Hansen Haupouri Partnership v Hastings District Council [pdf, 992 KB]

    ...ecological and other attributes of the wider area. Mr Hansen clearly S v The NZ King Salmon Co Ltd [2014] 1 NZLR 593(SC) 10 farming, properly so called, so his farming operations will not be unreasonably restricted by removing that activity from the permitted or controlled activities on the Disputed Area. [26] Other PDP provisions we see as particularly relevant to the issues in question are these: OBJECTIVE RRS04 To ensure that the natural, physical, and cultural resources of...