Search Results

1. Wikitera v Anderson - Rangitoto Tuhua 70B No 1B (2015) 106 Waikato Maniapoto MB 201 (106 WMN 201) [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...would be renewed, that the respondent undertook steps in reliance upon those representations and the applicants are now estopped from terminating the lease. Second, the applicants had failed to comply with cl 36 of the lease, being a clause which permits the landlord to lease the block to any beneficiary of the landlord, subject to certain conditions set out in that clause being met. 10 HC Masterton, CIV-2010-435-253, 4 May 2011. 1...

2. Hunia v Skerrett-White - Kawerau A8D (2016) 146 Waiariki MB 281 (146 WAR 281) [pdf, 620 KB]

   ...that is an amount of $2,000 I assume to Mr Fox and another amount of $1,000 to Mr Fox. What are those amounts for? C Skerrett: For Kani that is for lost time, he is self employed. [73] There is no dispute that as a fiduciary a trustee cannot permit any conflict between personal interests and the trustee’s duties to the beneficiaries. 47 Even a potential conflict of interest is sufficient to render a transaction improper. The Court of Appeal in Naera v Fenwick recently con...

3. Davis - Whangaruru Whakaturia 1D6B9A-D (2006) 108 Whangarei MB 219 (108 WH 219) [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...Trust") was established and all four blocks of land were vested in the trustees of that Trust, being Wero Karena, Patsy Karena and YVOlUle Karena, The Trust is subject to a standard wide­ powers trust order which, among other things, does not permit the trustees to sell the land but does pemlit the trustees to bOlTOW money with security over the land, [5] On 2 July 2004 a mortgage was noted in the Court records in relation to the land in favour ofUtrade Limited for the sum of...

4. Nelson Standards Committee v Webb [2011] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...particulars, except this statement about what constituted common practice, and he denied that his acts and omissions constituted misconduct. [5] We refer to this first charge as “the Email Charge”. [6] The second charge against Mr Webb was that he had permitted his parents to occupy the estate property from late August 2008 until mid January 2009 on a rent-free basis, without disclosing that fact to Milford & Dormer. [7] Particulars supporting the charge were listed, and Mr...

5. Auckland Standards committee 2 v Burcher Short [2015] NZLCDT 47 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...attributable to the Global Financial Crisis and the general downturn in the property market around 2008 to 2009, some of it must also be attributable to poor lending decisions initially, overly optimistic valuations, exceeding first mortgage recommendations (permitted by the Rules but not advisable) and having too great a portion of the loan portfolio advanced to one group of associated borrowers.” [35] Prior to the receipt of Maffey 2, Mr Eades had noted, in relation to the Maffey 1...

6. [2018] NZEnvC 139 Selwyn Quarries Ltd v Canterbury Regional Council [pdf, 4.8 MB]

   ...("Estate Homes"): When, on appeal 10 the Environment Court, an applicant seeks to have an application granted on a materially different basis from that put forward to the Council, considerable care is required before the Environment Court permits the matter to proceed on that different basis. Not every alteration in approach would require an applicant to make a fresh application to the Council, rather than to proceed by way of appeal. It is a question of degree. Furthermor...

7. LCRO 276/2013+293/2013+242/2016 CS v VN, PR and ZW ZM v VC [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...that Atkinson remains good law on the point, with the Act coming into effect, there was room for the view that on the face of r 4.4.1 and the definition of lawyer in the Act, a barrister could claim a lien for the purposes of r 4.4.1. The rule permits a lawyer, defined in the Act as “a barrister or a barrister and solicitor”, to claim a lien.20 [62] That being the case, there are two alternatives. Either Mr CS made an honest mistake or he adopted a position that was arguable b...

8. [2023] NZEmpC 105 Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors [pdf, 596 KB]

   ...that. [122] The evidence satisfies me that the plaintiffs expected to be rewarded for their work while working on the Teams and that they received a reward for their work on the Teams. In this regard, in exchange for their work they expected to be permitted to remain in the Community with their family and friends and continue to lead a life they were familiar with; that they would receive food, shelter, clothing, religious support and guidance; and the promise of spiritual redempti...

9. O'Hagan v Police [2020] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 827 KB]

   ...following remedies: (a) a declaration that the action of the defendant is an interference with the privacy of an individual: (b) an order restraining the defendant from continuing or repeating the interference, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the interference, or conduct of any similar kind specified in the order: (c) damages in accordance with section 88: (d) an order that the defendant perform any...

10. GA & BD v X SC LCRO 186/2013 (5 May 2014) [pdf, 154 KB]

    ...8 Above n 1 at [19]. 9 AP v ZG LCRO 278/2012. 10 Above n 1 at [19]. 11 the practitioners. I have some reluctance however to accept the overall thrust of Mr J’s’ comments which have the effect of permitting significant discretion on the part of a lawyer in complying with rules and other duties owed to investors, and have taken a different view from this in AP v ZG. [29] Mr Js’ comment in particular, that “it can be counter-product