Search Results

1. LCRO 145/2021 AZ v BY (28 October 2022) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...behalf to Mr AZ’s complaints. After addressing each of Mr AZ’s complaints, Mr CX concluded:1 … Mr BY considers that the complaint against him is without foundation. He considers that, viewed in the round, he acted with appropriate skill and care throughout the course of retainer and in accordance with how any reasonable lawyer would have acted in the particularly difficult circumstances of this case. 1 Letter CX to Lawyers Complaints Service (15 December 2020) at [50]....

2. CAC20007 v Jarman [2015] NZREADT 66 [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...seek any further orders, including orders for costs or compensation. General Principles on Penalty [4] It is well established that penalty decisions of professional disciplinary tribunals should emphasise the maintenance of high standards and the protection of the public through specific and general deterrence. While this may result in orders having a punitive effect, this is not their purpose: Z v CAC [2009] 1 NZLR 1; CAC v Walker [2011] NZREADT 4. [5] As Ms Jarman has pleaded guil...

3. Glamorgan v Dalbeattie LCRO 220 / 2010 (10 May 2010) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...as to what information was provided to both colleagues. [33] This office has issued guidelines on publication. Those guidelines set out the following factors as be relevant to publication: a. the extent to which publication would provide protection to the public including consumers of legal and conveyancing services; b. the extent to which publication will enhance public confidence in the provision of legal and conveyancing services; c. the impact of publication on the in...

4. FH v GJ LCRO 87/2014 (7 Aug 2015) [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...client (Mr GJ) about Ms FH.1 The complaint related to Ms FH’s involvement in the drafting and filing of a notice of claim in which she pleaded the tort of deceit. The complaint was that Ms FH had breached rule 13.8 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules.2 [3] The Committee determined that in being a party to the filing of the notice of claim Ms FH breached rules 13, 13.8 and 13.8.1 of the Rules and in particular: In brief the complaint arose from a disagreement in respect of a...

5. [2021] NZEnvC 001 Minister of Conservation v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 3.8 MB]

   ...policies seem to be more extensive than previously stated in the NPS­ FM 2014, although these may just give greater clarity: (i) In Policy 6 for example, there is to be "no further loss of extent of natural wetlands". Their values arc protected, and their restoration promoted. (ii) Policy 7, the loss of river extent and values is avoided to the extent practicable. (iii) Policy 8, the significant values of outstanding water bodies are protected. (iv) Policy 9, the hab...

6. GQ v TO LCRO 57 / 2011 (12 January 2012) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...assessed again by a Dr Y, but Mr HA would not consent to that. [17] On 19 February 2009, Ms TN, who had been instructed by ACS, wrote to Mr TO advising that she had been instructed by Mr and Mrs GQ to make application to the Family Court under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 for revocation of the Powers of Attorney and at the same time requesting the support of Mr HA to have Mrs HA assessed by Dr Y. That assessment was carried out ultimately in February...

7. [2020] NZIACDT 42 - NMS v Mercado (1 October 2020) [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...being employed by the other company. [65] In the event, Immigration New Zealand and the IPT deemed this arrangement to be a breach of the complainant’s visa conditions. However, these negative findings were not due to Mr Mercado’s want of care. While he may have been wrong in his interpretation of the arrangement, this does not necessarily equate to negligence.10 In other words, not every mistake amounts to a professional wrong or crosses the disciplinary threshold....

8. [2024] NZEnvC 296 Eden Epsom Residential Protection Society Incorporated v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   Eden Epsom Residential Protection Society Incorporated v Auckland Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 296 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under clause 14(1) of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 in relation to Private Plan Change 21 to the Auckland Unitary Plan BETWEEN EDEN EPSOM RESIDENTIAL PROTECTION SOCIETY INCORPORATED (ENV-2020-AKL-079) Appellant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Re

9. [2021] NZEnvC 140 Protect Aotea v Auckland Council [pdf, 545 KB]

   Protect Aotea v Auckland Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2021] NZEnvC 140 IN THE MATTER OF two appeals under s 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN PROTECT AOTEA (ENV-2020-AKL-155) AND PROTECT OUR GULF INCORPORATED (ENV-2020-AKL-157) Appellants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent AND PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED Applicant AND SOCIETY FOR PROTECTION OF AOTEA COMMUNITY AND ECOLOGY INCORPORATE...

10. BORA Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill [pdf, 311 KB]

    Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill 12 October 2012 ATTORNEY-GENERAL Leal Advice Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990: Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill 1. We have considered whether the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill (‘the Bill’) is consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (‘the Bill of Rights Act’). The Bill is a Member’s Bill in the name of Jacqui De...