Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed
Some decisions are published here by the judiciary from courts and tribunals. Not all decisions are published, and not all decisions can be found through our finder.
Find out more about using the decision finder.
View the full list of where to find decisions for each court or tribunal.
Decisions for the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court can be found in the Judicial Decisions Online.
There are also tools to help you find publications or forms, as explained on the Document finders page.
743 items matching your search terms
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed
Tort / trespass / distress damage feasant / Applicant parked her car on a site for a small errand elsewhere and found her car clamped by Respondent and was only released after payment of $250 charge / Applicant claimed for refund of the amount charged / Held: wheel clamp was not justified in the circumstances / not been provided with any evidence relating to authority of wheel clamping / even assuming authority existed, signs containing conditions were insufficient and obscured and not reasonably sighted by Applicant / doubt whether charge of $250 reasonable / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $250.
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed
Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed
M Limited (in Liquidation) v J
Haig v Edgewater Developers Ltd and Others
Bishop & Bishop v Bennett
Marsden [2012] NZWHT Auckland 2 eligibility decision DBH 6698. Decision date 19 January 2012.
Maurice Edward Aston Trust [2012] NZWHT Auckland 1 eligibility decision DBH 6778. Decision date 19 January 2012.
SC found conduct not "regulated service" / Discussions of s 12(c) / LCA and circumstances where this may apply where a lawyer is not providing regulated services.
Bourne and Ors v New Zealand Merchant Service Guild Industrial Union of workers Inc
LCRO confirmed SC decision of unsatisfactory conduct / Pursuant to section 211 (1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Respondent opened his car door and hit Applicant as she drove past, damaging the front side of her car / Held: Respondent created a hazard by opening his door in the path of ongoing traffic, breaching r 7.2(1) of the LTR 2004 and his duty of care / the Applicant was not driving too close to the Respondent / Respondent to pay reasonable costs to compensate Applicant, being $2,490.85.
Pursuant to Section 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed
Distinction between lawyer as solicitor, and lawyer as executor / attorney. Duty of executor/ Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed
09.01.12 | Chief Judge Isaac, Judge Milroy, Judge Clark, Judge Coxhead | Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, sections 58, 43, 56 | Rehearing
Auckland Council v McFadgen