Search Results

1. LCRO 49/2022 & 93/2022 WU v MQ obo CT (25 August 2022) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...CT’s will and the power of appointment does not vest in Mr WU alone. Elsewhere53 Mr MQ/Mr CT assert that what Mr CT wanted was for Mr MQ to be the executor of his estate. [75] The difference is subtle, but important, and it would have taken some careful explanation to ensure Mr CT comprehended the difference. It would also raise the level of understanding required of Mr CT. [76] In considering this question, it is perhaps of some relevance, that the focus of the complaints has...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 10 Shaw v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [pdf, 376 KB]

   ANA SHAW v BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD [2022] NZEmpC 10 [4 February 2022] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2022] NZEmpC 10 EMPC 4/2019 EMPC 360/2019 IN THE MATTER OF challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN ANA SHAW Plaintiff AND BAY OF PLENTY DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Defendant Hearing: 15–17 June and 2 July 2021

3. Appendix-4_Peter-Kinley_-s87F-Report_Flooding-and-Hydrology_28-April-2023.pdf [pdf, 1 MB]

   .................................. 12 Review of whether the design meets the proposed thresholds ........... 14 The assessment of freeboard ............................................................. 16 The approach to assessing the effects of scour protection ................. 17 The assessment of the effects of the works on flooding of buildings ... 19 The assessment of debris arrestors ................................................... 20 The peer review ..................................

4. Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHRRT 17 [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2017] NZHRRT 17 Reference No. HRRT 017/2013 UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 BETWEEN LOUISA HARERUIA WALL Plaintiff AND FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant AND THE MARLBOROUGH EXPRESS Second Defendant AND THE CHRISTCHURCH PRESS Third Defendant AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms GJ Goodwin, Member Mr MJM Keefe JP, Member REPRESENTATION: Ms

5. Submissions summary: Independent Panel examining the 2014 family justice reforms (second consultation round) [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   1 Although all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this document, the Ministry of Justice disclaims any and all responsibility for any inaccuracy, error, omission, or any other kind of inadequacy, deficiency, or flaw in, or in relation to, the information; and fully excludes any and all liability of any kind to any person or entity that chooses to rely upon the information.

6. LCRO 131/2017 GR v [Area] Standards Committee [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...of any decision pursuant to s 206(4) of the Act, if publication is necessary or desirable in the public interest. 9 [50] I agree with the Committee. There is educative value in publishing a decision such as this, although there is no public protection purpose to be served by identifying Mr GR. [51] Undertakings are fundamental to the practice of law. There are excellent reasons for principals to limit who can give undertakings, to closely monitor undertakings that are given,...

7. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hintze [2017] NZLCDT 13 [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...following aspects of seriousness: (a) Not completing work, leaving clients unrepresented. (b) Lack of professionalism, not forwarding files, not providing adequate advice. (c) His breach of ethical requirements meant that his clients were not “protected”. (d) Retention of fees which was dishonest. [16] Counsel for the respondent argued for a lesser period of suspension from practice. He submitted that account should be taken of the respondent having gained insight and un...

8. LCRO 195/2014 MC v GK (28 May 2018) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...September 2012). 8 • Mr MC received advice of Mrs GK’s death on 12 June 2009. • Probate was granted on 14 August 2009. • It was necessary to allow a period of 12 months from the grant of Probate to elapse to allow for any Family Protection claims. • The property could not be sold until Mr GK advised he would surrender his right to occupy the property. Settlement of the sale took place on 6 July 2012. Mr GK occupied the property until the date of settlement....

9. Lethbridge v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC) & Fenton [20181] NZREADT 29 [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...4 BD 557, paragraph 4.19. [15] The third element of the proposed additional evidence is set out in a statement from Dr Christine March who is the medical general practitioner who was providing medical care to the complainant in late 2015 when the events which are the subject of the complaint took place. [16] Dr March has given a brief written statement dated 22 June 2018 confirming that the complainant was her patient and that he had chro

10. Family Court Rewrite Submission - ADL [pdf, 253 KB]

    ...families notified of its availability at different stages in the process. It could be recommended to families that would benefit from it, without it causing an additional burden. For example, there can be significant challenges in organising extra childcare for Deaf and Disabled Children who have high and complex needs around their disabilities and impairments. ADL fully supports the recommendations about accessibility and reviewing content and delivery. We hope the review would con...