Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Holmes [2011] NZLCDT 31 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...balances, he was entitled to take fees for costs on the timesheet which 5 had not previously been billed, or having been previously written down, in order to recover the cost of the time expended. Mr Collins for the NZLS submitted that this plea “aggravates rather than mitigates his position”. [12] Mr Pidgeon QC, for the practitioner, suggested that a practitioner might be forgiven for thinking that the cost of locating the clients and returning the money or paying to...

2. BORA Commerce Amendment Bill [pdf, 418 KB]

   ...would be prohibited from considering whether the undertaking is still necessary or desirable, and the extent to which the contravention may have lessened competition in a market. 37. New section 85C impacts upon the ability of a defendant to make a plea in mitigation, or at least, to have it considered. However, we accept that new section 85C (in combination with the mandatory considerations in new section 85A(4)) is designed to place the focus on the behaviour of the defendant, rather t...

3. BORA Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill [pdf, 408 KB]

   ...matters as the state of court lists, the availability of witnesses and counsel, pre-trial rulings and jury disagreement, might dissuade a defendant on the verge of turning 16 from undertaking the process, thereby potentially inciting a false guilty plea. Are these prima facie breaches justified limitations under section 5? 21. Where provisions are found to be prima facie inconsistent with particular rights or freedoms, they may nevertheless be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act if t...

4. Complaints Assessment Committee 416 v Singh [2018] NZREADT 34 [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...naivety about his actions. [38] We also take into account that Mr Singh has shown contrition and a better understanding of the risks his actions created. Further, he co-operated with the investigation and gave an early indication of a guilty plea to a charge of unsatisfactory conduct. [39] We have concluded that the appropriate penalty comprises censure, a fine, and an order to complete further education. The level of the fine to be imposed takes into account our decision that...

5. LCRO 194/2015+56/2016 TB v HN Ltd (12 June 2017) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...Tribunal each independently considered that a fine of between $7,000 and $7,500 fairly reflected the nature and seriousness of the conduct. [42] It is important to note that Mr TB does not take issue with the AMINZ decision. If he did, his plea for a reduction in the fine to go to the NZLS may well have been greeted with less enthusiasm. However, Mr TB says he has paid everything he owes AMINZ including the $7,000 fine. [43] Fairness is an essential aspect of natural justice...

6. [2017] NZEmpC 114 Quality Consumables Ltd v Hannah [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...8 Assured Financial Peace Ltd v Pais [2010] NZEmpC 50 at [5]. Conclusion and disposition [23] In considering whether the challenge to the determination is soundly based, the Court can only make an inferential assessment based on the pleadings, the determinations and any other documentary evidence which may have been provided. The plaintiff now asserts that the defendant’s resignation was a genuine resignation and not part of a constructive dismissal. There is also a d...

7. [2021] - NZREADT 09 - Complaints Assessment Committee 1905 v Papuni (24 February 2021) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...licensees to act with honesty and integrity on real estate transactions. She submitted that Mr Papuni’s conduct clearly amounts to disgraceful conduct under s 73(a) of the Act. [15] On behalf of Mr Papuni, Mr Perry recorded that Mr Papuni had pleaded guilty to the charge of disgraceful conduct. He had no further comment on the submissions for the Committee. Discussion [16] Section 73(a)of the Act provides: 73 Misconduct For the purposes of this Act, a licensee is guilty of...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Barton [2020] NZLCDT 28 (10 September 2020) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...Barton’s last employers gave her a complimentary reference.12 After taking that employment, she advised her new employers that “she was under some sort of disciplinary matter.”13 She worked there for five months. They found her to be “honest, pleasant, punctual and a good worker.”14 [25] We accept the Standards Committee’s submission that the primary purpose of the present proceedings is not punishment15 but the maintenance of professional standards, to denounce the con...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2020] NZLCDT 18 (30 June 2020) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...Law Society. Censure [45] We record in this decision the Tribunal’s formal censure of the practitioner. He has failed in his obligations to his profession to abide by an order made by his profession’s disciplinary body following a guilty plea being entered by him in December 2016. In doing so, he has seriously fallen short in his professional obligations. This censure forms part of the practitioner’s record. Orders 1. Mr Burcher will be suspended for two months from 1...

10. LCRO 133/2019 HM v RN (24 February 2020) [pdf, 117 KB]

    ...instructions to him at the time, in Mr RN’s view, Mr HM had no arguable defence to the charges. Mr HM instructed Mr RN to seek a sentencing indication, which Mr RN did. Mr HM’s instructions remained as they had been, to maintain a not guilty plea and await a jury trial date. [8] Mr RN considered himself unable to continue to represent Mr HM and unable to delay trial further. Mr RN sought and obtained the Court’s leave to withdraw as counsel for Mr HM. [9] Over the cours...