Search Results

1. LCRO 7/2024 SO v EJ and QJ (30 July 2025) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...matters were subject to efforts to reach an ‘agreement’. Mr SO is the executor of the Estate. As executor he has fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries, and his role is to proceed to administer the Estate in accordance with those duties. [128] The High Court has jurisdiction over Mr SO’s duties in that respect, and the complaints and disciplinary procedures can not directly address those issues. [129] Mr SO would be able to respond to any proceedings issued by Mrs EJ and Ms QJ...

2. [2025] NZIACDT 36 – BL v Schoeller (17 July 2025) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...attached submissions. From the adviser [62] Ms Schoeller filed a statement of reply (17 June 2024), with attached Adviser’s Response to Statement of Complaint (17 June 2024). 3 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 45(2) and (3). 4 Section 49(3) and (4). 5 Sparks v Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 6 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 50. 7 Section 51(1). 8 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55,...

3. 02-General-Arrangements-v2.pdf [pdf, 20 MB]

   ...TO BE ADDED AS DESIGNS PROGRESS. 3. INDICATIVE SEAL WIDENING IS SHOWN ON SOME HORIZONTAL CURVES WITH ALLOCATION TO MEDIAN OR SHOULDERS TO BE CONFIRMED IN LATER STAGES. 4. PLAN SET DOES NOT SHOW ALL HEADLIGHT SCREEN REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN ADJACENT ROAD SECTIONS. 5. ROAD MARKINGS ARE INDICATIVE ONLY. 6. BRIDGES ARE SHOWN INDICATIVELY ONLY. REFER TO BRIDGE DRAWING SERIES FOR FURTHER DETAILS. 7. BRIDGE ABUTMENT LOCATIONS, SKEWS AND WINGWALLS ARE INDICATIVE ONLY (INDIVIDUAL BRIDGE PLAN SET TAKES...

4. [2025] NZREADT 05 - CAC 2204 v Cooper & Cooper Co Real Estate Ltd (17 February 2025) [pdf, 242 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2025] NZREADT 05 Reference No: READT 030/2023 IN THE MATTER OF A charge laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BROUGHT BY COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 2204 AGAINST MARTIN COOPER First Defendant AND COOPER & CO REAL ESTATE LIMITED Second Defendant Hearing in Auckland on 19 November 2024 Tribunal: Ms C Sandelin, Deputy Chairperson Mr N O’Connor, Member

5. [2020] NZEnvC 122 Auckland Council v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...[33] The Council disagrees with both of these proposals. In relation to the proposed boardwalk, the Council notes that the expert evidence of Mr Saxon was that there should be a boardwalk to protect four trees, but that the path could comprise sections of concrete within the root zones of 13 trees. In relation to the aesthetic design, the Council notes 7 that condition 59 addresses this in terms of the reference to the application documents and, in particular, the work done by I

6. [2017] NZEnvC 162 Mawhinney v Auckland Council [pdf, 24 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Decision No. [2017] NZEnvC162 IN THE MATTER OF an application for declarations under section 311 of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND BETWEEN AND an appeal pursuant to section 358 of the Resource Management Act 1991 PETER WILLIAM MAWHINNEY (AS TRUSTEE) AND THE TRUSTEES OF WAITAKERE FOREST LAND TRUST AND THE TRUSTEES OF FOREST TRUST (ENV-2015-AKL-000088) (ENV-2016-AKL-000033) Appellants/Applicants AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Court: E

7. Hastie and Dredge TRI-2023-100-001 Procedural Order 5 [pdf, 251 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2023-100-001 BETWEEN DONALD BRETT HASTIE AND LEANNE GAIL DREDGE as trustees for THE HASTIE & DREDGE FAMILY TRUST Claimants AND BARRY RONALD BARNES and PAMELA HOLMES First Respondent AND BARRY RONALD BARNES Second Respondent AND CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Third Respondent AND GRAEME JACOBS ARCHITECT LIMITED (COMPANY NUMBER 1496058) Fourth Respondent AND DSF BUILDERS LIMITED (COMPANY NUMBER 1863635) F

8. LCRO 126/2023 EG v HJ (28 November 2023) [pdf, 283 KB]

   LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2023] NZLCRO 145 Ref: LCRO 126/2023 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN EG Applicant AND HJ Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] The applicant h

9. Trustees of Maungatautari 4G Sec IV v Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust - Maungatautari No 4G Sec IV (2014) 86 Waikato Maniapoto MB 248 (86 TTK 248) [pdf, 217 KB]

   86 Waikato Maniapoto MB 248 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO MANIAPOTO DISTRICT A20140002867 UNDER Section 19, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Maungatautari No 4G Sec IV Block BETWEEN TRUSTEES OF MAUNGATAUTARI 4G SEC IV BLOCK Applicant AND MAUNGATAUTARI ECOLOGICAL ISLAND TRUST First Respondent AND WAIPA DISTRICT COUNCIL Second Respondent AND TED TAUROA Third Respondent AND

10. Ratu v Marshall - Whangape Lot 65B Sec 2A [2023] Māori Appellate Court MB 115 (2023 APPEAL 115) [pdf, 383 KB]

    ...Māori Appellate Court MB 115 (2023 APPEAL 115) I TE KOOTI PĪRA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O WAIKATO MANIAPOTO In the Māori Appellate Court of New Zealand Waikato Maniapoto District A20210012662 APPEAL 2021/6 WĀHANGA Under Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Whangape Lot 65B Sec 2A Block I WAENGA I A Between DICK RATU, HAYDEN RATU AND THOMAS WAKA AS TRUSTEES OF WHANGAPE LOT 65B SEC 21 AHU WHENUA TRU...