Search Results

1. Nelson Standards Committee v Webb [2011] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...particulars, except this statement about what constituted common practice, and he denied that his acts and omissions constituted misconduct. [5] We refer to this first charge as “the Email Charge”. [6] The second charge against Mr Webb was that he had permitted his parents to occupy the estate property from late August 2008 until mid January 2009 on a rent-free basis, without disclosing that fact to Milford & Dormer. [7] Particulars supporting the charge were listed, and Mr...

2. Auckland Standards committee 2 v Burcher Short [2015] NZLCDT 47 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...attributable to the Global Financial Crisis and the general downturn in the property market around 2008 to 2009, some of it must also be attributable to poor lending decisions initially, overly optimistic valuations, exceeding first mortgage recommendations (permitted by the Rules but not advisable) and having too great a portion of the loan portfolio advanced to one group of associated borrowers.” [35] Prior to the receipt of Maffey 2, Mr Eades had noted, in relation to the Maffey 1...

3. [2018] NZEnvC 139 Selwyn Quarries Ltd v Canterbury Regional Council [pdf, 4.8 MB]

   ...("Estate Homes"): When, on appeal 10 the Environment Court, an applicant seeks to have an application granted on a materially different basis from that put forward to the Council, considerable care is required before the Environment Court permits the matter to proceed on that different basis. Not every alteration in approach would require an applicant to make a fresh application to the Council, rather than to proceed by way of appeal. It is a question of degree. Furthermor...

4. LCRO 276/2013+293/2013+242/2016 CS v VN, PR and ZW ZM v VC [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...that Atkinson remains good law on the point, with the Act coming into effect, there was room for the view that on the face of r 4.4.1 and the definition of lawyer in the Act, a barrister could claim a lien for the purposes of r 4.4.1. The rule permits a lawyer, defined in the Act as “a barrister or a barrister and solicitor”, to claim a lien.20 [62] That being the case, there are two alternatives. Either Mr CS made an honest mistake or he adopted a position that was arguable b...

5. [2023] NZEmpC 105 Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors [pdf, 596 KB]

   ...that. [122] The evidence satisfies me that the plaintiffs expected to be rewarded for their work while working on the Teams and that they received a reward for their work on the Teams. In this regard, in exchange for their work they expected to be permitted to remain in the Community with their family and friends and continue to lead a life they were familiar with; that they would receive food, shelter, clothing, religious support and guidance; and the promise of spiritual redempti...

6. O'Hagan v Police [2020] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 827 KB]

   ...following remedies: (a) a declaration that the action of the defendant is an interference with the privacy of an individual: (b) an order restraining the defendant from continuing or repeating the interference, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the interference, or conduct of any similar kind specified in the order: (c) damages in accordance with section 88: (d) an order that the defendant perform any...

7. GA & BD v X SC LCRO 186/2013 (5 May 2014) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...8 Above n 1 at [19]. 9 AP v ZG LCRO 278/2012. 10 Above n 1 at [19]. 11 the practitioners. I have some reluctance however to accept the overall thrust of Mr J’s’ comments which have the effect of permitting significant discretion on the part of a lawyer in complying with rules and other duties owed to investors, and have taken a different view from this in AP v ZG. [29] Mr Js’ comment in particular, that “it can be counter-product

8. Ratahi v Parininihi Ki Waitotara Incorporation - Section 53 Block IX Opunake SD being part Ngati Kahumate Block comprised in CT D4/240 (2007) 195 Aotea MB 127 (195 AOT 127) [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...deciding whether a rehearing should be granted; (e) section 43 requires that a rehearing application be lodged 28 days from the original decision. It was not lodged by the applicant until 13 December 2005 and so falls outside of the parameters permitted by section 43. Accordingly, the couli has no jurisdiction to hear it at all given that no subsidiary application was before the Court that could not have been lodged sooner; and (f) the objectors are relatively unsophisticated and wi...

9. Langhorne v ACC [2010] NZACA 11 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...1978. [74] With respect to the suggestion that the cessation was wrong or unlawful, this is, at best, speculative. The Corporation endeavoured to consider the possible reasons for cessation but ultimately took an interpretation of events that permitted the reinstatement of the appellant’s ERC from the date it was ceased (refer to the Corporation’s memorandum 19/10/07). [75] Nevertheless, the fact remains that the appellant did not challenge the calculation and cessation in...

10. Joint-memorandum-of-counsel-for-the-Transport-Agency-and-Transpower-6-July-202060266780.1.pdf [pdf, 182 KB]

    ...Activities 2009 ("NESETA"): As noted above, the Project potentially requires raising the level of the conductors to achieve the necessary clearance from the road. At this stage, the required height change is expected to be within the permitted activity status threshold, and as such, no consent is required. Para 190(g) Pg. 46 TP doesn’t know if the Project meets NESETA or if consent is required as the detailed electrical engineering assessment hasn’t been completed....