Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Hong [2014] NZLCDT 41 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...response in order that the institutions of professional discipline are not undermined. [27] While we accept that the practitioner has finally complied with the orders, the proximity to the penalty hearing is such that it seriously undermines his plea of proper contrition or understanding of his professional obligations. [28] The Tribunal is particularly concerned that this practitioner does not accept that he is a member of a professional body and that his conduct therefore reflects...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 177 SAI Systems Ltd v Bird [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...proceedings. 1 Both parties agreed that the challenge could be dealt with on the papers. Background [2] The Authority's determination was commendably brief. It did not deal with the facts of the substantive matter before it, but from the pleadings filed in this Court, the background that is not in dispute can probably best be summarised as follows. 1 Bird v Sai Systems Ltd [2014] NZERA Wellington 27. [3] Mr Bir...

3. Meulenbroek v Vision Antenna Systems Ltd (Costs) [2015] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 52 KB]

   ...Meulenbroek’s re-integration into the Church and described how Mr Meulenbroek’s faith gradually evolved. This evidence was corroborative of Mr Meulenbroek’s own evidence. Third, Mr Kulakov was directly involved in the central events. He made pleas to Vision to respect Mr Meulenbroek’s religious beliefs and tried to negotiate a resolution. These efforts were relevant to the central issue whether Vision adequately tried to accommodate Mr Meulenbroek’s religious beliefs. Fourt...

4. Hristovski v Accident Compensation Corporation (Jurisdiction) [2023] NZACC 159 [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...adjudicated. The concept of res judicata is often applied to both cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel. Traditionally its use was confined to the former. Cause of action estoppel is different from issue estoppel which can arise where a plea of res judicata in the 5 Rasmussen v ACC [2004] NZACC 340 at [7] 6 Shann v ACC [2007] NZACC 171 at [24] per Judge Ongley. strict sense is not open because the causes of action are not the same: see 16 Halsbury's Laws of England (...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burton [2023] NZLCDT 23 (26 May 2023) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...Auckland DATE OF DECISION 26 May 2023 COUNSEL Mr J Schwarcz for the Standards Committee Mr A Gilchrist for the Respondent Practitioner 2 RESERVED DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON PENALTY Introduction [1] Mr Burton has pleaded guilty to two charges of misconduct, the first relating to failure to comply with orders of the Standards Committee, and the second, failure to respond to enquiries or requests from the Standards Committee in a timely manner. [2] Mr...

6. Mullane v Attorney-General (Request for Documents) [2020] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 621 KB]

   ...directive from person/s unknown, (but it is my educated guess that it is GCSB and Prime Ministers Department) to stop the truth of this scandal being revealed to the public, hence a total media ban and why Politicians, from day one, have ignored my pleas for help and also why senior respected officials, such as Edwards, Judge Sir David Carruthers, Judge Peter Boshier and his corrupt side-kick Leo Donnelly, have deliberately misled me, delayed investigations of my complaints to their Agenci...

7. Wellington Standards Committee v Lester [2015] NZLCDT 23 [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...stringent diary structures to ensure that matters are followed up. (iii) Stays abreast of new developments in the areas of law she now works in. (iv) She has a supportive and constructive partnership with Philip McCabe. (c) The respondent’s plea of guilty to the charges indicates that she has accepted responsibility for her conduct. (d) That some allowance could be made because of the introduction of the District Court Rules 2009 with their various time frames which caused...

8. National Standards Committee v Jefferies [2016] NZLCDT 29 [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...police that items in the car belonged to someone else, said the same about those in his office and commented that other people visited his home. In other words he lied about the ownership or possession of the items. 3 [7] Mr Jefferies pleaded guilty in August of 2015, following a negotiation over the summary of facts. This was over a year after being charged. He was sentenced to total fines of $1,300, having sought a discharge without conviction. On appeal the sentence...

9. Auckland Standards Committee v Eteuati [2009] NZLCDT 17 [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...adjournment in order to obtain legal advice. Fortunately that she has now done and is today represented by Mr Curry who one or two days ago, indicated to the Society and the Tribunal that the charge would be accepted by Mrs Eteuati and so I record that plea which was received through her counsel and I have also been advised today that the facts are able to be read as agreed facts and they are as follows: [a] Mrs Eteuati has until recently held a practicing certificate as barrister...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Hong [2019] NZLCDT 40 [pdf, 129 KB]

    ...included three censures and two fines of $7,500. [12] Mr Collins’ submission is that Mr Hong’s disciplinary record discloses that the following important features of his offending render his disciplinary record a relevant ground to support the pleas for suspension, notwithstanding that the charges and circumstances of each event are not on all fours with the present matter. Those features are: (a) the span of his career over which they have occurred indicating an enduring t...