LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2025] NZLCRO 114 Ref: LCRO 36/2024 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 CFJ Applicant AND BDU Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] The applicant,
...the dismissal will be important in determining the scope of the evidence which is relevant to the issue of contribution under s124. Subsequently there has been a Court of Appeal decision in the Salt case, which I will refer to later ([2008] NZCA 128). [50] Mr Finnigan accepted that as the dismissal was for poor work performance, if that could be established and was either significant or persistent, it might qualify as contributory conduct. However, the mere fact that there were o...
...defendant has failed to discharge the burden of justifying the plaintiff’s dismissal. Remedies [64] Mr Pollak did not address remedies in his final submissions. In his opening submissions he invited the Court to exercise the discretion under s 128(2) and (3) of the Act to award the plaintiff reimbursement of lost remuneration equal to the remuneration losses she suffered as a result of her dismissal. He submitted that this sum as a calculation was straightforward as it was a...
LCRO 45 & 46/2014 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 PO Applicant AND RQ Respondent (045/2014) AND FE Respondent (046/2014) The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] Mr PO has applied to review decisions by...
...from the roof to the ground. Any alternative is untenable, necessarily involving some form of impropriety on the part of G E Construction. Issue 3: If so, was the damage causative of the overspill? [65] Given my findings in the previous section, I therefore find the damage was causative of the overspill. Issue 4: Did Vero have a contractual obligation and/or owe a duty of care to repair the downpipe and spouting? [66] There was an insurance contract between the Claimants an...
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2022] NZREADT 7 Reference No: READT 003/2021 & 004/2021 IN THE MATTER OF Appeals under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 READT 003/2021 BETWEEN WM and NU Appellants AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 1906) First Respondent AND BENJAMIN CARTWRIGHT Second Respondent READT 004/2021 AND BETWEEN BENJAMIN CARTWRIGHT Appellant AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2024] NZLCRO 044 Ref: LCRO 76/2022 LCRO 81/2022 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 PF Applicant/Respondent AND BA Respondent/Applicant The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed...
...taken by the firm were entirely conventional. The objections raised by Ms TC lack merit. [127] Ms ZU suggests that [Law firm A] had been persistently indifferent to responding to her concerns regarding the release of the correspondence. 21 [128] That was not the case. [129] Ms ZU argues that the firm had refused to provide her with a copy of the firm’s complaints procedure. [130] [Law firm A] accepted that it had not responded in January 2024 to a request from Ms ZU to pr...
114 Taitokerau MB 131 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20130001016 UNDER Section 326B, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Te Touwai B19A1 BETWEEN LAVINIA LISA ROBERTS Applicant Hearing: 23 October 2013 15 August 2014 2 February 2015 (Heard at Kaikohe) Judgment: 15 October 2015 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGES D J AMBLER AND M P ARMSTRONG 114
Wedd et al IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision No. [2022] NZEnvC 247 IN THE MATTER an appeal under section 358 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (Act) AND applications for declarations under section 311 of the Act BETWEEN COUNTRY LIFESTYLES LIMITED (ENV-2021-AKL-000051) Appellant / Applicant INFOTECH ACCOUNTANTS LIMITED (ENV-2021-AKL-000149) C WEDD (ENV-2022-AKL-000001) Applicants AND AUCKLAND CO