Search Results

1. Gray & Ors as Trustees of the John Gray Family Trust v Lay [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...there is no argument about the fact that Mr Lay was involved with the construction work on this project. The Owners claim that Mr Lay failed to manage or supervise the work properly, which led to the defects, which was in breach of his duty of care owed to subsequent owners of the dwelling. 3.6 The fourth respondent is the company of Jessop Townsend Limited (“JTL”), which the Owners say was the architectural practice that undertook the design work, prepared the drawings fo...

2. [2023] NZEmpC 162 Birthing Centre Ltd v Matsas [pdf, 445 KB]

   ...refer to some of the extensive evidence placed before the Court. [4] For the purposes of its analysis, the Authority noted that BCL is owned by the Wright Family Foundation, a trust which was established with a view to effecting change in the care and support of birthing mothers, with an emphasis on primary care during the first 1,000 days. It was noted that BCL provides primary birthing services at various locations around New Zealand, one of which was Te Papaioea where the pr...

3. Directory of Official Information 2019 J-L [pdf, 834 KB]

   ...Lakes District Health Board ...............................................................................................22 Land Information New Zealand .........................................................................................27 Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd ...............................................................................32 Landcorp Farming Limited (Landcorp) .............................................................................35 Law Commissi...

4. 2019 Directory of Official Information J-L [pdf, 490 KB]

   ...Lakes District Health Board ...............................................................................................21 Land Information New Zealand .........................................................................................27 Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd ...............................................................................32 Landcorp Farming Limited (Landcorp) .............................................................................35 Law Commissi...

5. Faleauto v DE LCRO 99/2015 (29 November 2016) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...contravened ss 110(2) and 112(1) of the Act, regs 9 and 10 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008 (the Trust Account Regulations), and rr 9.3 and 14.2 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules). [3] The Committee also determined that there had been unsatisfactory conduct on the part of Mr Faleauto because he failed to complete the retainer with Mr DE, failed to keep Mr DE informed of progress of the r...

6. ENVC speech Arbitrators Mediators Institute 2013 [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...experience of the Commissioner as a member of the Court comes into play. In addition to mediation training, new Commissioners are buddied up and more complex mediations may be co-mediated. Plan Change appeals can involve a large number of parties. Careful management of the mediation process is critical to successful outcomes in these types of appeals. We have found that a significant proportion of appeals on Plan Change and Plan reviews are resolved through mediation. b. Reso...

7. [2015] NZEmpC 17 ALLWAZE Designs Ltd v Cawthorne [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantial security may, in effect, prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. An order having that the effect should be made only after careful consideration and in a case in which the claim has little chance of success. Access to the Courts for a genuine plaintiff is not lightly to be denied. [16] Of course, the interests of defendants must also be weighed. They must be...

8. [2020] NZEmpC 227 Wills v Farmlands Co-Operative Society Ltd [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...alternative advice. [19] In Ms Sharma’s submissions she argued that, in combination, giving instructions at the January meeting, returning the acceptance page and the subsequent emails showed the test in s 115(b) was met. She emphasised the client care and service section of Pitt & Moore’s terms and conditions, where the firm agreed to protect and promote Ms Wills’ interests. Although not expressed precisely in these terms, Ms Sharma’s submissions for Ms Wills emphasis...

9. LCRO 161/2017 CR v EM, DN and BN (24 January 2019) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...Standards Committee (the Committee) which concluded there had been unsatisfactory conduct on his part arising from his involvement in the sale of a property in the exercise of his powers under a power of attorney made by Mr TN (the EPOA) pursuant to Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PPPR Act). [2] The respondents are the complainants, Mr TN’s grandson EM, and Mr TN’s children BN and DN (the respondents). Mr TN appointed his son BN as property attorney joint...

10. Faleauto v GH LCRO 100/2015 (29 November 2016) [pdf, 107 KB]

    ...contravened ss 110(2) and 112(1) of the Act, regs 9 and 10 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008 (the Trust Account Regulations), and rules 9.3 and 14.2 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules). [3] The Committee also concluded that Mr Faleauto had contravened rules 4.2, 7.1 and 10 by failing to complete the retainer he had entered into when he agreed to represent Ms GH’s brother, and rule 14.4 b...