Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Sharma [2015] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...well known that the Disciplinary Tribunal’s penalty function does not have as its primary purpose punishment, although orders inevitably will have some such effect. The predominant purposes are to advance the public interest (which includes “the protection of the public”), to maintain professional standards, to impose sanctions on a practitioner for breach of his/her duties, and to provide scope for rehabilitation in appropriate cases.” [40] It was Daniels8 also which reminds th...

2. National Standards Committee v Toner [2013] NZLCDT 38 [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...too, may indicate that a lesser penalty will be sufficient to protect the public.” [41] In the Daniels6 matter, the Full Court stressed the necessity in examining whether a lesser intervention will suffice. [22] ...Tribunals are required to carefully consider alternatives to striking off a practitioner. If the purposes of imposing disciplinary sanctions can be achieved short of striking off then it is the lesser alternative that should be adopted as the proportionate response .....

3. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Hong [2020] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...submission of Mr Collins for the Standards Committee is that the substance of the misconduct findings is that Mr Hong betrayed his clients, under the guise of a benevolent financial rescue package. In doing so, he not only failed in his obligation to protect their interests but in fact caused harm to their interests. Mr Collins argued that this case is a textbook example of the reason for the existence of rules prohibiting lawyers’ personal financial dealings with their clients,...

4. Bookings and what to expect

   ...prohibition or judicial order restricting publication. The suppression order can apply to the defendant or another party in the case, such as the victim. You must always keep all details relating to a case confidential, but you should be particularly careful if there’s a suppression order. You may face legal action, including a fine or imprisonment, if you breach a suppression order by disclosing any of the suppressed details. Update your contact details You can update your contact details by...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. Lawyers & service providers >
   3. Service providers >
   4. Interpreting in courts & tribunals

5. Restorative justice: Practice standards for family violence cases 2019 [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...Restorative Justice Standards for Family Violence Cases was released in July 2013. They were released after considerable consultation with, and input from, restorative justice providers and facilitators. In developing the new standards in 2018, careful consideration was given to ensuring they reflected the most up-to-date approaches to risk assessment and safety planning while building on the work carried out to develop the 2013 standards. The standards were published as a living d...

6. Ward v Maccol Developments Ltd [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...E2 and B2 of the regulations made under the Building Act 1991. [36] The Owners also claim against the First respondent, Maccol in tort. The Owners say at law, Maccol owed them as immediate (and subsequent) purchasers, a non-delegable duty of care as the developer of their property to ensure that proper care and skill was exercised in the construction of the dwellinghouse on the development property. [37] The Owners claim that Maccol breached the duty of care by failing to ex...

7. OQ v QM & ors [2024] NZDT 539 (22 July 2024) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...the respondent’s part. 13. An occupier is entitled, without giving notice, to cut back to the boundary the overhanging branches or encroaching roots of a neighbour’s trees. 14. The only proviso legally, is that it be done with reasonable care. 15. Whereas that may be relatively straight forward with respect to branches of a tree, it is hard to imagine that cutting roots back, will cause anything other than harm. 16. However, putting aside the uncertain possibility that a...

8. Suresh v Elizabeth [2019] NZIACDT 30 (10 May 2019) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...submit the expression of interest to Immigration New Zealand on or before 28 September 2016 while he was eligible for automatic selection, thereby providing services negligently, or services which were not professional, diligent, and done with due care and in a timely manner, in breach of cl 1. (3) Allowed unlicensed individuals to provide immigration advice in breach of the Act and also in breach of cl 2(e) and 3(c). (4) Failed to have a refund policy, in breach of cl 19(k)....

9. Turner v Itchyfoot Pty Ltd [2021] NZHRRT 27 [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...defendant DATE OF HEARING: Heard on the papers DATE OF DECISION: 9 June 2021 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL1 BACKGROUND [1] Mr Turner is a home owner. He had an overseas trip planned in mid-2017 and wanted a house sitter to take care of his house and his dog while he was away. 1 [This decision is to be cited as Turner v Itchyfoot Pty Ltd [2021] NZHRRT 27.] IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2021] NZHRRT 27 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA 2 [2] Itchyfoot...

10. Legal Complaints Review Officer v Hong [2013] NZLCDT 9 [pdf, 224 KB]

    ...to be poor advice and to save them from unnecessary cost. He considered that it would act to test Mr Deliu’s confidence in continuing the Ma proceedings. Mr Hong said that he likened it to a contingency fee, and that it had the advantage of protecting (as he saw it) Mr and Mrs Ma and testing Mr Deliu. We agree that the proposal was unusual and on its face is unprofessional, but the matter was raised for consideration by the Complaints Service in the context of a complaint/c...