Search Results

1. LCRO 95/2019 CM v DL (9 March 2021) [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...2019) at [9]. 18 R v Nakhla (No 2) [1974] 1 NZLR 453 (CA) at 456. 23 addressed by general reference to it having given consideration to all aspects of the complaint. [137] Mr DL practises as a barrister. [138] In that capacity, he is not permitted to receive and hold funds from a client, and subsequently render an invoice in which funds held are credited to the sum owing. [139] Funds paid to a barrister on account of fees must be lodged in the barrister’s instructing solici...

2. [2019] NZEmpC 192 Johnson v Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force [pdf, 394 KB]

   ...amount he spent on IT advice from Mr Howard ($1,201.75), and legal advice from Ms Lear ($10,663.30). [164] Mr Lucie-Smith did not advance any submissions with regard to this aspect of Mr Johnson’s claim. [165] Section 123(1)(b) of the Act permits, when a grievance has been established, reimbursement of “other money lost by the employee as a result of the grievance”. [166] This issue was discussed in Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd, where it was found that there may be limited circum...

3. Abraham v Auckland City Council [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...all cases of negligence is that of the reasonable man (sic). The defendant, and indeed any other council, is not an insurer and is not under any absolute duty Claim No. 3368 - Determination 16 of care. It must act both in the issue of the permit and inspection as a reasonably prudent council would do. The standard of care can depend on the degree and magnitude of the consequences which are likely to ensure...” (emphasis added) [48] Council inspectors are not expected...

4. Faulkner v Deputy Registrar - Allotment 5 Parish of Tahawai [2010] 2010 Maori Appellate Court MB 643 (2010 APPEAL 643) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...make submissions. If anyone had that right, he submitted, it was the trustees of the land and they had forgone their opportunity to appear. [22] Ms Zame pointed out that Mr Faulkner had named the Council as respondent and the Council had been permitted to make submissions before the lower Court. Mr Rupe responded that the act of naming the Council was simply a formality and did not cloak it with a right to be heard. [23] At the hearing we allowed the Council to participate. We di...

5. Donaldson v Hemi - Whaanga 1D1D Roadway (2021) 230 Waikato Maniapoto MB 168 (230 WMN 168) [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   ...easement over their share in the land.22 Mr Harrison goes on to say that the Ritchie’s rights over the G track are limited by cl 10(d) of the registered cross lease to “the purposes of access for pedestrians”. This means that the Trust can permit pedestrian access over the G track without consent of the Ritchie family. I also accept Mr Hemi’s evidence that he is committed to the G track providing the best solution for everyone. That must be the case since, if the Trust sou...

6. Johnson v Canterbury/Westland Standards Committee 3 - Outcome of appeal of decisions [2018] NZLCDT 5 and [2018] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 439 KB]

   ...established and said it viewed the number of breaches and repeated failure to adhere to the Trust Account Regulations to demonstrate reckless disregard of the Regulations.31 [75] Under Charge 3, Mr Johnson was charged with misconduct for: (a) Permitting client balances to go into debit; (b) Not putting large client balances on interest bearing deposit; (c) Allowing the float account to become overdrawn; (d) Not maintaining journal entries for a period and not recording certain...

7. LCRO 194/2020 WQ and QZ v [Company A] (29 March 2022) [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...“justify a bill”, would “be difficult to do” where the client “was not on notice of a method of billing” apart from “usual time and attendance”. In such cases the lawyer would “have to establish as a matter of contract that this is permitted as well as having to establish as a matter of professional conduct that the fee reached is fair and reasonable”.22 Importantly concerning the application of r 3.4 in the context of Mr WQ’s, and Ms QZ’s review application...

8. Harland v ACC [2014] NZACA 13 [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...jurisdiction is very close to bullying tactics aimed at a vulnerable appellant and does ACC little credit. [21] Regarding costs, there is no power under s 110 for the Authority to award costs against an appellant except in terms of subs (3), which permits the Authority to make an award of costs on an application for an adjournment against either ACC or the appellant as the applicant, and when in the interests of justice, the Authority considers the adjournment should be allowed, but t...

9. [2017] NZEmpC 150 Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs Ltd [pdf, 492 KB]

   ...be provided to people who handle chemicals whatever their status for the purposes of health and safety. Equally I accept that requiring some badge of identification, in this case a uniform, is simply an incident of the fact that valeteers are permitted to drive high value goods, motorcars and vans. That said, I accept the claimants’ evidence that they are fully integrated into the respondent’s business and that they have no real other source of work.” tax purposes.3...

10. LCRO 22/2019 HT v MK (29 May 2020) [pdf, 326 KB]

    ...told him as soon as [Mr MK] knew about the change of shareholding at the Companies Office. [199] Mr MK says he did not know about the change of ownership until he received Mr HT’s complaint to the Complaints Service. He asks whether Mr HT “permitted” the change to DOT’s records because DOT holds its own share register.59 [200] Mr MK was told by Mr HT on 1 July he was not required to assist with settlement, and that BEG had not handed over a share transfer to SIN. [20...