Search Results

1. [2022] NZREADT 28 - Harris (14 December 2022) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...text refers to a letter dated 9 May 2022 from the Registrar. This is a mistaken reference to the Registrar’s letter of 6 May 2022. 4 it had not been reported. He was advised to send proof by 5 pm that day, otherwise he would have to appeal to the Tribunal. [11] Mr Harris accessed an online verifiable training provider and completed the training on 24 May 2022. Prior to 5 pm that day, he duly provided the record of completing 20 hours of training on the same day.2...

2. [2013] NZEmpC 171 Fifita v Dunedin Casinos Ltd [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...difficult when non-monetary remedies, particularly reinstatement, are sought or where the plaintiff’s legitimate interest in the outcome includes non-monetary components, such as reputation or vindication. This has been recognised by the Court of Appeal in a number of cases but what was said in those cases and the approach to be taken was summarised in Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell 6 : [17] The starting point is that reg 68(1) of the regulations provides that the Cou...

3. Austen v Far North District Council - Okahu 3B2A and Okahu 3B2B2D (2022) 252 Taitokerau MB 87 (252 TTK 87) [pdf, 284 KB]

   ...additional jurisdiction.16 14 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, Preamble and s 2(1). 15 Above n 13, s 2(2). 16 See Mikaere-Toto v Te Reti B and C Residue Trust – Te Reti B and Te Reti C Block (2014) Māori Appellate Court MB 249 (2014 APPEAL 249), and Nikora v Tuhoe Te Uru Taumatua (2020) 2020 Māori Appellate Court MB 248 (2020 APPEAL 248). 252 Taitokerau MB 97 [39] Also, s 24A does not expressly limit the Court’s jurisdiction under s 18(1)(d) of TTWMA. In...

4. National Standards Committee 1 v Peters [2019] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...conduct and thus this question would be answered affirmatively. Issue 3 – Continuation of Interim Suppression Order [45] We accept the submission of both counsel that wider publication ought not to occur until the trial is concluded and all appeal rights exhausted. When there is an adverse finding about a practitioner’s conduct involving the media the Tribunal should be careful to protect against its decision repeating the conduct until the matters of concern are concluded....

5. LCRO 42/2018 MF v Standards Committee (10 October 2018) [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...requiring the lawyer to hold the funds in a trust account as a stakeholder must adhere strictly to those terms and disburse the funds only in accordance with them. [42] In W v Auckland Standards Committee 3 of the New Zealand Law Society the Court of Appeal said:7 [47] As Mr [WJ] rightly accepted, the law has always regarded it as important that practitioners honour their undertakings. This is reflected in r 6.07 of the Code of Professional Conduct then in force. Practitioners and t...

6. 4 Auckland Standards Committee v Stirling 2010 NZLCDT [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...authority of Atkinson v Auckland District Law Society (NZLPDT: 50/8/90, N Marque, Chair) preferring the approach in Australia in relation to a medical practitioner; Pillai v Messiter (No. 2) (1989) NSWLR 197, 200, a decision of the Australian Court of Appeal. In the C decision [33] the Court held: “To conclude, the Atkinson test adopted by the Tribunal incorrectly includes within the definition of professional misconduct falling within s.112(1)(c) and in other respects, is not par...

7. Pirini v Ure - Oakura Pa (2020) 425 Aotea MB 237 (425 AOT 237) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...“satisfactorily”.9 It was held that the Court is required to carefully review the trustees’ performance against standard trust duties to decide whether removal was appropriate in the circumstances of the particular case. [33] Then in the Court of Appeal decision Rameka v Hall, that Court underscored the necessity for trustees to consistently follow their duties and responsibilities and that when trustees’ behaviour was contrary to those duties then removal was inevitable.10...

8. LCRO 59/2016 and 61/2016 DE and QV v Standards Committee (27 September 2018) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...TG also made mention of the fact that he considered all three lawyers were entitled to a consideration of their past careers. 11 [54] All of these comments are accepted and Mr TG’s concerns are reinforced by comments made by the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Law Society v B where the Court said:10 A censure or reprimand, however expressed, is likely to be of particular significance in this context because it will be taken into account in the event of a further complaint again...

9. Statistical bulletin: An overview of conviction and sentencing statisitcs in New Zealand 2000 to 2009 [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...1 The data used in this report was extracted from the Justice Data Warehouse on 31 May 2010. 2 www.stats.govt.nz/methods_and_services/access-data/TableBuilder 3 This diagram does not include appeal or review processes. http://www.stats.govt.nz/methods_and_services/access-data/TableBuilder STATISTICAL BULLETIN: CONVICTION AND SENTENCING STATISTICS 3 Figure 2: Number of prosecuted charges, 2000–2009 Prosecution outcome refer

10. Lawyer-for-Subject-Person.-Selection-Appointment-and-Other-Matters.pdf [pdf, 238 KB]

    ...on the rate of remuneration and/or any additional cost, the file should be referred to a judge for direction. 6.9 The lawyer’s appointment will continue: (a) for 28 days from a final order pending any party to the proceedings taking steps to appeal; and (b) if directed to continue by the court for a specific purpose. 6.10 The role of the lawyer is contained in section 65 of the PPPR Act and referred to in detail in the FLS Best Practice Guidelines. 7 REPORT TO THE COURT...