Search Results

1. Braniff – Motatau 2 Section 52B (2015) 111 Taitokerau MB 299 (111 TTK 299) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...D2A. 4 [20] More importantly, and as set out above, there are no objections to this two-step approach. 4 Larkins v Kaitaia – Waihou Hutoia D2A [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 189 (2013 APPEAL 159). 111 Taitokerau MB 304 [21] Turning then to the whānau trust, it is clear that all of Mate’s children agree that the shares should be vested into a whānau trust. Moerangi and Fiona have raised concerns over the terms...

2. LQ Burgess 28 June 2014 NZSHD 9 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...The Police Objection noted that the applicant was due to appear next to answer the charges before the Waitakere District Court on 26 May 2014. [8] On 22 April 2014 the applicant wrote to the Authority. In her letter she said “I wish to lodge an appeal and request a hearing to have this matter adjudicated”. The Authority took this to mean that the applicant was requesting a hearing in person before the Authority pursuant to s.26(1) of the Act. [9] In a Minute dated 26 April 2014...

3. Livingstone v The Trustees of Lake Taupō Forest Trust – Lake Taupō Forest Trust (2012) 295 Aotea MB 6 (295 AOT 6) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...trustees through regular elections. 5 The trust has thousands of owners and the issue of rotation was highly contentious. Proceedings continued over several years and involved proceedings before this, the Appellate Court and even the Court of Appeal. Put another way, the owners and trustees had been engaged in a 3 Proprietors of Mangakino Township Inc (1999) 73 Taupö MB 30 4 Rihia v Te Rūnanganui o Ngäti Hikairo...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 222 Selwyn Foundation v Nayathodan re-issued [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...– not only to the applicant but also affected non-parties. Although an ability to challenge the refusal of a non-publication order at an interlocutory stage may disrupt unfinished Authority business, in the sense identified by the Court of Appeal in Rawlings, its distinguishing characteristic is that it is not the sort of determination that can subsequently be remedied on a challenge or by way of review. The horse will have well and truly bolted by that stage. … [27] In t...

5. Wellington Standards Committee v McGuire [2013] NZLCDT 41 [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...consider a total of $14,700 appropriate. DATED at AUCKLAND this 3rd day of October 2013 D J Mackenzie Chair 9 Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society [2006] 3 All ER 675; and on appeal, [2007] EWCA Civ 233.

6. CAC306 v Murphy & Anor [2015] NZREADT 88 [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...general sentencing factors, they are each fined $2,000 to be paid to the Registrar of the Authority at Wellington within one calendar month of this decision. [28] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s 116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr J Gaukrodger Member ___________________________...

7. Penalty REAA CAC 20004 v Lindsay [2014] NZREADT 35 [pdf, 39 KB]

   ...ethics to be determined by the Registrar, and approved as appropriate by our Chairperson, just as soon as that can be conveniently arranged. 7 [35] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Ms N Dangen Member ______________________________ Ms C...

8. IT v KRR [2015] NZIACDT 66 (28 May 2015) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...simply describes the services as “Work Visa”. These particular instructions concerned a matter that could become intractable, and require extensive work. If Mr R was intending to convey he was willing and in a position to see the matter through to appeals and other requests, the fixed fee may have been a very modest one. If he intended he would simply make a phone call which would possibly resolve the issue, and that that was the end of his engagement, then the price was likely excessi...

9. Penzance v Runcorn LCRO 170 / 2009 (10 February 2010) [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...a former client it must be that if they were to so act “the fiduciary obligation owed to the former client would be undermined”. The nature of the fiduciary obligations of lawyers in such a situation was examined by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co v Tower Corporation - [1998] 3 NZLR 641. In that case it was considered that a lawyer must not act where the lawyer holds confidential information; the information is sensitive, i.e., of a...

10. GB v PW LCRO 140/2012 (13 August 2014) [pdf, 142 KB]

    ...much 1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 2 Above n1. 3 Affidavit of Ms GB sworn 2 July 2012 at [22]. 4 Above n 3 at [7]. 3 broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing [11] The parties attended a review hearing in Auckland on 2...