.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 (5) Tribunal comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 6 .5 .3 Owners of properties with section 27B Treaty of Waitangi (State Enterprises) Act memorials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 6 .5 .4 Unresolved mandating issues . . . . . . . . ....
LCRO 261/2016 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN TJ Applicant AND DM and ZP Respondent DECISION The names identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Ms TJ has applied to review a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee [X] to take no further actio...
...would be required to pay for. [127] Ms PQ says that when Mr JM raised objection to request for payment for the legal opinion provided, she spoke to Mr BV who confirmed to her that he was “adamant” that Mr JM had formally instructed him. [128] Ms PQ says that it was Mr BV’s practice to give careful consideration to issuing proceedings against a former client for recovery of fees. He instructed her to commence proceedings against Mr JM because of his firm conviction that Mr JM...
LCRO 88/2018 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee BETWEEN MC Applicant AND OT Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] Mr MC has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee (the Committee) to take no fur...
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2022] NZLCRO 20 Ref: LCRO 177/2021 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee BETWEEN FA Applicant AND LL Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Ms FA has applie...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2023] NZACC 59 ACR 304/21 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN LESLIE AUSTIN Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 29 March 2023 Held at: Wellington/Te Whanganui-a-Tara by AVL Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented L Hansen for the respondent J...
...Leave On the death of an employee the Director General may approve a cash grant in lieu of retiring leave to: • The surviving partner; or • Dependent children; or the estate of a deceased employee. … [10] In the definitions section of the CEA, the following statement was made: For Leave Purposes: Day: Means number of hours an employee normally works each day. … [11] Appendix 2 to the CEA was a document dated 3 May 2013, described as terms of settlem...
...may have that effect, but to ensure that appropriate standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned. 3 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citations omitted). 10 … The purpose of disciplinary proceedings is materially different to that of a criminal trial. It is to ascertain whether a practitioner has met appropriate standards of conduct in the occu...
...process. It cites the Court of Appeal case of Street v Fountaine as support.25 Although there are valid concerns about the reliability of witnesses, both the fourth respondent and the claimants have 25 Street v Fountaine [2018] NZCA 55 at [128]. 13 submitted comprehensive affidavits, which points to their memory of events being sufficiently detailed so as not to give rise to the issue of unreliability. [55] Furthermore, the claimants bear the onus of proving each of the d...
108 Taitokerau MB 76 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20140009232 A20150003382 UNDER Sections 37(3), 239, 240, 338(7) and 338(8), Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 Regulation 3(f), Māori Reservation Regulations 1994 IN THE MATTER OF Otakanini Māori Reservation BETWEEN PEARL HILL Applicant Hearing: 17 February 2015 25 May 2015 8 June 2015 (Heard at Auckland and Whangarei) Judgment: 14 August 20