Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2019] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 307 KB]

   ...“general, not file specific, mentoring may be permitted”. Ms Ollivier went on to state the Society’s expectation that “… any contact with clients about updating wills/trusts would be carried out by other staff” and finally she noted that “care will need to be taken that other lawyers do not form the impression that you are continuing to practise although that seems unlikely from what you have described”. [19] Approximately a week later Mr Burcher sent a further email...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Anderson [2022] NZLCDT 25 (22 July 2022) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...particular, her estranged husband, Mr G, having agreed to move out of the home that they had shared (and which was owned by a trust and separate property in terms of the s 21 Agreement), was 4 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 5 Ms Anderson had only been married to this man for two years, and they had a contracting out agreement pursuant to s 21 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. 4 reneging on that agreement and refusing to...

3. DL v EX LCRO 128/2012 (16 December 2013) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...rendered to Mr DN when he was alive; 4 b. he had anticipated that some of the children from Mr DN’s first marriage may challenge his will and that, when this occurred, the Practitioner successfully negotiated settlement of two potential Family Protection claims; and c. that his legal costs of $30,547.81 equated to approximately 60 hours work for him, undertaken over many months. The Practitioner did not feel that this was in any way an excessive charge, but noted that he...

4. Alchin and Scott TRI 2020-100-001 [2022] NZWHT AUCKLAND 01 [pdf, 374 KB]

   ...show any metal flashings is not correct. Mr Bodger’s opinion is that the building consent documents clearly detail flashings into the sill and jamb areas as required and that the documentation shows the lapping methodology of the flashings to protect the “Triple S” substrate from moisture. Mr Bodger’s evidence is that on his site visit on 3 February 2021 with Mr Gilling, further destructive testing was undertaken and although it found that the galvanised sill flashings had...

5. Wellington Standards Committee v Twigley [2016] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 601 KB]

   ...represented payment of those invoices. [35] While Mr Twigley contended he had his client’s authority to deduct the $10,000 he had no file note of such and accepted that that was a departure from his usual practice. He said that after some years of careful file noting, he was by this stage at a desperate phase and “fire fighting”. He accepted that would mean “unfortunate inferences” could be drawn. [36] Mr HP totally denied giving any such authority and the taking of the...

6. LCRO 158/2019 RL v BN, TG and VK (1 April 2021) [pdf, 604 KB]

   ...At hearing, Ms RL argued that she had been severely traumatised by her experience in working with the [Co 2] franchise and was vulnerable and not well placed to cope with the litigation. She considered that her lawyers had failed to adequately protect her and guide her through the litigation with careful and considered advice. Against this, it is argued for the lawyers that they had been successful in achieving what Ms RL had set out to achieve, namely to delay [Co 2]’s claim unti...

7. Joanne Barbara Noble - Evidence in Chief [pdf, 3.2 MB]

   ...decision-making on resource consents (and plan changes) in relation to land in the coastal environment and the coastal marine area, and include the natural heritage (NH) and iwi resource management (IW) policies. In general these policies relate to the protection of matters of national importance identified under s6 of the Act, and management of risks from coastal hazards. 22. Part Four contains activity based policies and rules that reflect the restrictions on use of the coastal ma...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 101 UXK v Talent Propeller Ltd [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...intended position, Mr Upton pressed the previously made request for the witness summons which, he said, had been drafted by Talent. Ms Fechney strongly opposed the request, submitting that UXK’s health information was confidential and should be protected; and that questioning would be inappropriate. [25] On 13 May 2022, the Authority issued a minute dealing with this request in light of the parties’ submissions. [26] It recorded that Talent wished to question the two medica...

9. Richards - Karaka Huarua A and B (2004) 98 Whangārei 273 (98 WH 273) [pdf, 4.7 MB]

   ...account the location of any waahi tapu and areas of cultural significance. The Applicants would also take any necessary steps to safeguard waahi tapu sites identified on the area for partition; (d) any opposition to the Partition Application must be carefully weighed by the Court, taking into account all relevant circumstances including the level of actual beneficial owner opposition as compared with the views, however strongly felt, of non-owners. In any case, the Applicants shares outw...

10. Smitheram v Hanns [2010] NZWHT Wellington 24 [pdf, 483 KB]

    ...Code Compliance Certificate No. 1 pursuant to section 43 (2) of the Building Act 1991 in respect of the work under Building Consent SR39887. [14] During the course of construction documentation was addressed to the family trust, sometimes care of Roger Walker Limited, and forwarded to the trust‟s solicitors for payment. There were also discussions between the trust and the purchasers in relation to variations in the building works and later discussions in relation to faults...