Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Hylan [2014] NZLCDT 31 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...facilitation of a dishonest scheme, it was a “one off” incident, there was no personal financial gain, and the Tribunal was provided with glowing references on the practitioner’s behalf. In short, a very similar situation to the current one. On appeal against the Tribunal’s decision to strike off the practitioner, a two years suspension was substituted by Peters J in the High Court. I discern no material features of this 9 Above...

2. Sionepulu v Downer and Police (Costs) [2012] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...to the Secretariat dated 15 August 2012 on the question of costs he asserted (inter alia): My wife and I (plaintiffs) have decided not to proceed nor participate in the discriminatory Palangi justice system in Auckland but will instead present our appeal to the Maori and Pacific Island radio and press media, and selected Members of Parliament. After wrongly asserting that a member of the Tribunal (Mr Musuku) “has a brother who works for the same law firm (Kensingtonswan lawyers) as...

3. BC v YT LCRO 215 / 2010 (1 April 2011) [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...that if a similar approach were to be adopted by the Respondent in his dealings with the Court, then the integrity of the justice system would be severely compromised. He was also critical of the Respondent for not providing a favourable Court of Appeal decision in respect of one of the cases referred to. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent was selective in what he supplied to the Law Society. [7] The Applicant is also offended by the accusations made by the Respondent, and...

4. Wandsworth v Ddinbych & Keith LCRO 149 & 150 / 2009 (5 March 2010) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...compensation for stress and disruption to his affairs. The ability to compensate for anguish and distress in the lawyer client relationship has been recognised in a number of cases, most recently Heslop v Cousins [2007] 3 NZLR 679. The Court of Appeal has recognised that such distress damages are compensatory in nature: Paper Reclaim Ltd v Aotearoa International Ltd [2006] 3 NZLR 188 (CA) at para 171. Given the purposes of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (which in s 3(1)(b) inclu...

5. Halesowen v Kelso LCRO 175-176 / 2009 (18 November 2009) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...dispute relating to the appointment of trustees are now before the Mäori Appellate Court. However, this does not affect the conduct of this matter before the Standards Committee. The comments of the judge in relation to Ms Halesowen are not under appeal (and are now well over a year old). Those comments were supported by concerns raised by Mr XX. It was entirely appropriate for the Committee to act on the basis of those comments in commencing an inquiry. [25] It was also suggested...

6. GL v JS LCRO 289/2013 (30 October 2014) [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...the LCRO considers that the Review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [29] In Deliu v Hong the High Court made the following observation about the role of the LCRO:6 In my view the power of review is much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his...

7. Trustees Executors Ltd as trustee for the Simpson Family Trust v Wellington City Council [pdf, 42 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2007-101-000029 BETWEEN TRUSTEES EXECUTORS LTD as TRUSTEE FOR THE SIMPSON FAMILY TRUST Claimant AND WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL First Respondent AND HEYHOE BUILDERS LTD Second Respondent AND JEANETTE O’CALLAGHAN Third Respondent AND G R W CONSULTANTS LTD. T/A FIRST WINDOWS AND DOORS Fifth Respondent AND CHRISTOPHER HEYHOE Seventh Respondent AND PAUL SIMPSON Eighth Respondent AND MIRANDA PATRICK Ninth Respon

8. Lee v Wellington City Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 31 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...Baragwanath J. [16] In Hartley v Balemi,4 Stevens J concluded that personal involvement does not necessarily mean the physical work needs to be undertaken by a director but may include administering the construction of the building. The Court of Appeal in Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor5 has also more recently considered director liability and analysed the reasoning in Trevor Ivory Limited v Anderson.6 It held that the assumption of responsibility test promoted in that case w...

9. [2017] EmpC 124 Sunair Aviation v Walters [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...justified on financial grounds; 7 At [29]. 8 At [30], citing Hally Labels Ltd v Powell [2015] NZEmpC 92. 9 At [64]. 10 At [66]. 11 At [89]. 12 At [93]. 13 The application refers to an “appeal” but a challenge is meant. (b) Mr Walters’ challenge will require all the evidence in the Authority to be traversed, even on the limited basis on which the challenge is made; (c) The delay in filing a challenge is les...

10. BORA Securities Legislation Bill [pdf, 122 KB]

    ...penalty order and be liable for a fine under the relevant Act for the same conduct.[12] In respect of the civil liability provisions enabling compensation to be ordered in some instances, we draw your attention to the majority decision of the Court of Appeal in the leading case on 26(2), Daniels v Thompson[13] that made it clear that this section must be read as referring: Only to criminal proceedings relating to an offence against the law, for which the person has been tried. What is pr...