Search Results

1. CS v HT and LM LCRO 25/2013, 50/2013 and 51/2013 (24 June 2014) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...the prospects of success; and  neither Mr HT nor Mrs LM had advised him of the potential for a claim under the Family Protection Act. [35] He also alleged that Mr HT was seemingly uninterested in providing advice with regard to any potential appeal. This complaint is of course a new matter which was not addressed by the Standards Committee and therefore cannot be included in this review. This would include any complaint that neither Mr HT nor Mrs LM had advised him of the opt...

2. LS v TD LCRO 298/2012 (10 December 2014) [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...considers it cannot take the matter further. The LCRO has looked at the matter and has made a finding. Accordingly, Ms LS is now in the same position as if the matter had been the subject of specific consideration at the Committee level and then appealed the decision to the LCRO. Review [15] A review hearing was held in [city] on 13 November 2014. Mrs LS was represented by Mr QO and Mr TD by Mr JW. 4 Above n 2 at [8]. 5 Above n...

3. AF v BN LCRO 166 / 2011 (25 July 2013) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...that he had been unable to write up the books because he was ill and admitted that he should not have certified to the Law Society that the accounts complied with the Society’s rules. [47] The charges against the solicitor were made out and on appeal the Court held that:9 7 B v Medical Council [2005] 3 NZLR 810 (HC) at 811. 8 Re a Solicitor [1972] 2 All ER 811. 9 Above n7 at 815. 9 on the charge of failing to keep th...

4. [2017] NZEmpC 161 Aslam v Transportation Auckland Corp Ltd [pdf, 284 KB]

   ...outcome. The Court or the Authority must do so objectively, that is ensuring that they do not substitute their own decisions for those of the fair and reasonable employer in all the circumstances. [50] In considering that assessment, the Court of Appeal in A Ltd v H said:3 [46] It is apparent that the effect of the statute is that there may be a variety of ways of achieving a fair and reasonable result in a particular case. As the Court in Angus observed, the requirement is for...

5. FE v MB LCRO 328/2012 (23 February 2015) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing [32] Mr FE and his lawyer attended a review hearing in [city...

6. Moctezuma v Chase-Seymour [2013] NZIACDT 40 (26 June 2013) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...power to regulate its own procedure (section 49(1)). However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [94] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: [T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the right...

7. ZQI v DI [2013] NZIACDT 70 (24 October 2013) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...referred to the Tribunal by the Registrar under section 48: (b) to make decisions as to whether an immigration adviser's licence should be suspended under section 53 pending a final decision in regard to a matter involving a licensee: (c) to hear appeals against— (i) a decision of the Registrar to cancel the licence of an immigration adviser under section 27; or (ii) a determination by the Registrar to reject a complaint under section 45(1)(b) or (c) as not disclosing a gro...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 057 Far North Holdings Limited v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 5.5 MB]

   ...TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA Court: Hearing: Appearances: Date of Decision: Date of Issue: IN THE MATTER AND AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC S l­ of the Biosecurity Act 1993 the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) of an appeal pursuant to s 291 of the RMA FAR NORTH HOLDINGS LIMITED KERIKERI CRUISING CLUB WHANGAREI HARBOUR MARINE MANAGEMENT TRUST WHANGAROA MARINA MANAGEMENT TRUST RIVERSIDE DRIVE MARINA (2015) LIMITED (ENV-217-AKL-137) Applicants...

9. [2018] NZEmpC 25 Sawyer v The Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington [pdf, 378 KB]

   ...Employment Court Regulations 2000, reg 38(1)(a)-(d). [28] While not referred to in reg 44, it is apparent from reg 37, that disclosure is confined to relevant documents. Relevance is dictated by the pleadings.10 In Airways Corp the Court of Appeal held that the pleadings define the ambit of the proceeding and the issues to which questions of relevance must be related. The Court cautioned that relevance should not be looked at narrowly, but can never be divorced from the is...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 56 Rodionov v Ozone Technologies Ltd [pdf, 363 KB]

    ...that these principles remain appropriate: Fagotti v Acme & Co Ltd.21 [42] Next, a question which arises in this case is whether Ozone should be regarded as the successful party. Usually, costs follow the event.22 [43] However, the Court of Appeal in Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly noted that cases where parties have mixed success may be different. [44] The Court noted that it is not necessarily easy to determine who ‘won’ the case, and who would thus be entitled to costs.23...