Search Results

Search results for appeal.

13314 items matching your search terms

  1. CAC 10012 v Khan [2011] NZREADT 11 [pdf, 145 KB]

    ...licence and impose the maximum fine of $750. This decision and penalty were given orally by the Tribunal at the conclusion of the hearing. Our reasons for this decision are set out above. [45] The Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to the appeal provisions in s.116 Real Estate Agents Act 2008. DATED at Auckland this 15th day of June 2011 ______________________________ Ms K G Davenport Chairman ____________________________...

  2. David Guccione Evidence in Chief [pdf, 290 KB]

    BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Auckland Registry ENV 2015 AKL 0000134 IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal under Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act TRUSTEES OF MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST Appellant BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF ·DAVID GUCCIONE ON BEHALF OF MOTITI ROHE MOANATRUST 25th October 2017 Counsel Acting . Rob Enright . Barrister Level 1, Stanbeth House 28 Customs St E...

  3. Auckland Standards Committee v Fendall [2012] NZLCDT 1 [pdf, 92 KB]

    ...9 In Bolton v Law Society, supra, and as noted in [38] above 10 [1998] 1 NZLR 750 at 758 lines 32 - 46 11 See Waikato/Bay of Plenty District Law Society v Harris [2006] 3 NZLR 755 at 780 para 121 (Court of Appeal) 10 by her errors totalling $17,366 out of total billings over the period of $1,210,000, and the fact that the errors occurred on relatively few days compared to the number of days examined in the 31 month period covered by the audi

  4. AG v ZQ LCRO 204/2011 (14 February 2014) [pdf, 102 KB]

    ...allegation of breach of equitable duty. The Court had the benefit of examining all of the evidence, and the cross examination of the evidence. If the Complainant disagreed with the Court’s judgment, the proper step would have been to seek an appeal. It is not appropriate to revisit this matter again here. [27] A fifth matter alleged that the Practitioner had verbally abused the Complainant when he went to his lawyer’s office to sign an agreement. The Complainant explained...

  5. LCRO 229/2017 and 021/2018 VL v YN (8 May 2019) [pdf, 257 KB]

    ...in court. [77] Another decision of this Office where an award of compensation for anguish and distress has been made is LCRO 79/09 which involved a situation where dilatory conduct by a lawyer resulted in clients being out of time for lodging an appeal in court.13 In that review, the applicant had claimed a sum of $18,000 by way of compensation for “stress 12 At [29]. 13 LCRO 79/09 (24 September 2009). 15 of an emotional and...

  6. King v Te Aretoa - Succession to Puti Green [2021] Chief Judges MB 132 (2021 CJ 132) [pdf, 408 KB]

    ...paragraphs (a) to (d). 3 See Ashwell – Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell) [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209 (2009 CJ 209) and Tau v Nga Whanau O Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167). 4 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, s 108. Section 108 has since been amended by s 24 of Te Ture Whenua Maori (Succession, Dispute Resolution and Related Matters) Amendment Act 2020. 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 146 Kōreror...

  7. LCRO 60/2016 MO v Standards Committee (27 September 2018) [pdf, 174 KB]

    ...[56] Mr QV also made mention of the fact that he considered all three lawyers were entitled to a consideration of their past careers. [57] All of these comments are accepted and Mr QV’s concerns are reinforced by comments made by the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Law Society v B where the Court said:10 A censure or reprimand, however expressed, is likely to be of particular significance in this context because it will be taken into account in the event of a further complaint agai...

  8. [2022] NZREADT 26 He & An (22 November 2022) [pdf, 253 KB]

    ...working days of this decision. 3. Ordered to pay costs of $1,419.50 to the Authority within 20 working days of this decision. [75] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. ___________________ C A Sandelin Deputy Chairperson ___________________ G J Denley Member ___________________ P N O’Connor Member

  9. Mason - Tukehu Miriama Whānau Trust (2008) 133 Otorohanga MB 141 (133 OT 141) [pdf, 494 KB]

    ...breach of this underlying principle will, to a large extent, be a question of fact and degree, and for that purpose the facts must be closely scrutinised. The formula propounded by Lord Scarman, in Queensland Mines Ltd v Hudson (1978) 18 ALR 1, 3, appeals to me. He adopted the test put forward by Lord Upjohn in his dissenting judgment in Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 at p 124, that is, whether "the reasonable man looking at the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular c...

  10. LCRO 176/2019 LJ v RY and PG (7 July 2020) [pdf, 230 KB]

    ...from the court to prepare and file the statement of defence. Nature and scope of review [39] The nature and scope of a review has been discussed by the Court. In Deliu v Hong,18 the Court said: … the power of review is much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his...