Mike Ross Law Blog
Legal issues: Inside out
29 February 2012
Extradition: USA v. Dotcom
›
Bail conditions creating an personal electronic prison will suffice for individuals held in New Zealand pending extradition. Internet entr...
24 February 2012
Company: Wilson v. Blanchett
›
Any failure to properly document drawings from a closely-held company can result in court orders for repayment. Liquidators of an Auckland...
15 February 2012
Crafar Farms: Tiroa E v. Land Information
›
Interests associated with Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite are running a canny strategy of disruption against Chinese interests looking t...
20 December 2011
Tax: Tannadyce Investments v. CIR
›
It was an abuse of process for a taxpayer to try and circumvent the prescribed tax disputes process by claiming Inland Revenue was refusing ...
Blue Chip: re Northern Crest Investments
›
Australian investors needed High Court approval to support their claim to three million dollars used to prop up Blue Chip operations in Aus...
12 December 2011
Tax avoidance: Alesco NZ Ltd v. CIR
›
Sixteen different taxpayers and revenue totalling $300 million is in dispute with Inland Revenue as it targets use of hybrid securities to f...
09 December 2011
Bankruptcy: Taylor v. Official Assignee
›
A court ruling that $227,000 be repaid by a family trust following bankruptcy was reversed on appeal when the bankrupt argued that payments...
23 November 2011
Maori: Takamore v. Clarke
›
In disputes over burial custom, it is the executor who has final responsibility for decisions over the manner and place of burial. With a ...
17 November 2011
Infrastructure valuations: Vodafone v. Telecom
›
Valuation of infrastructure assets got an airing in Supreme Court litigation closing out a long running dispute over the cost to Telecom of ...
02 September 2011
Earthquake Insurance: EQC v. Insurance Council
›
Losses following the Canterbury earthquakes have been shifted from the private sector to the Earthquake Commission following a High Court ru...
Nathans Finance: R. v. Moses, Doolan & Young
›
Two directors of Nathans Finance have been jailed for their part in the company’s failure; two others received home detention. Just over on...
29 August 2011
Leaky Homes: Tisch v. Body Corporate 318596
›
Proposals which force owners in leaky apartments to pay over the odds for water damage to other owners’ apartments do not find favour with t...
24 August 2011
Tax avoidance: Penny & Hooper v. CIR
›
Artificially low salaries having the effect of diverting taxable income to other taxpayers on a lower marginal tax rate will be hit as tax a...
16 August 2011
Money laundering: Westpac v. MAP Associates
›
While banks might have legitimate concerns about liability for assisting money laundering, they are not entitled to block money transfers u...
22 July 2011
Export Sales: Smallmon v. Transport Sales
›
Exporters selling into Australia are not directly responsible for ensuring goods comply with Australian regulations. A Queensland buyer ...
12 July 2011
Bridgecorp: R. v. Petricevic
›
There is no injustice in having to do without a lawyer in a criminal trial. Rodney Michael Petricevic, charged with criminal offences foll...
08 July 2011
Nathans Finance: R. v. Moses & others
›
Directors of Nathan Finance have been convicted of misleading the public about the company’s financial position when they failed to disclose...
03 June 2011
Bridgecorp: Petricevic v. Legal Services Agency
›
The family trust of bankrupt Bridgecorp director, Rodney Michael Petricevic, had a net worth of $5.2 million dollars as at March 2009 accord...
27 May 2011
Financial adviser: Armitage v. Church
›
Poor financial advice is not excused simply by having clients complete a risk profile questionnaire. Financial advisers are still obliged ...
19 May 2011
Maori: Haronga v. Waitangi Tribunal
›
Individual hapu can have property rights which differ from iwi-wide claims. The Waitangi Tribunal has been told to exercise its statutory ...
11 May 2011
Share offers: Financial Markets Authority v. Carrington Securities
›
Unsolicited mailshots to small shareholders in listed companies are misleading and deceptive where prominence given to the above-market offe...
‹
›
Home
View web version