Search Results

1. Wellington Standards Committee v Twigley [2016] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 601 KB]

   ...represented payment of those invoices. [35] While Mr Twigley contended he had his client’s authority to deduct the $10,000 he had no file note of such and accepted that that was a departure from his usual practice. He said that after some years of careful file noting, he was by this stage at a desperate phase and “fire fighting”. He accepted that would mean “unfortunate inferences” could be drawn. [36] Mr HP totally denied giving any such authority and the taking of the...

2. LCRO 154/2024 WK v QM (26 June 2025) [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...terms such as the applicant and the respondent are used to facilitate the anonymised publication of this decision. 2 [3] The grandmother and the father lived at the property until the grandmother developed dementia and eventually moved into aged care. [4] The father apparently had substance abuse issues and lived a rather bohemian lifestyle. The grandmother had been his economic support, not vice versa. The [redacted] was a labour of love rather than a viable business. Consequent...

3. LCRO 151/2023 OA v HF and MT (22 July 2025) [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...below standard of what the reasonable practitioner would have done in the same circumstances, nor that she caused the Complainants loss. The allegations raised in the Complaints are made with the benefit of hindsight and seek to impose a standard of care higher than what is required. Ms MT [32] The complaint about Ms MT is that she had not competently supervised Ms HF as required by r 11.3 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules.9 7 Letter [Law firm 2] to Lawyers Complaints Service (3...

4. LL v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 306 (24 April 2024) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...to have warned LL as soon as they knew of the scam. 28. Further, it is relevant that the contractual terms and conditions go to some lengths to explain that U Ltd is not responsible for the things that are beyond their control. 29. U Ltd is careful in its terms and conditions to advise purchasers about their buyer protection scheme. 30. There is no contractual obligation that U Ltd would take responsibility in such situations. 31. The scam was clearly an example of condition...

5. 20240924-Marine-and-Coastal-Area-Takutai-Moana-Customary-Marine-Title-Amendment-Bill.pdf [pdf, 372 KB]

   ...Court of Appeal’s decision, Parliament passed the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 (FSA). That Act vested legal ownership of the foreshore and seabed in the Crown and extinguished territorial Māori customary rights in those areas, as well as providing protection for public access and navigation rights. The Act prescribed a process by which those held to have territorial customary rights in the foreshore and seabed could seek redress from the Crown or apply for creation of a foreshore and s...

6. Directory of Official Information Search Tool

   ...working days Animal Control Products Limited orillion state owned enterprise Animal Control Products Limited, trading as Orillion, is a State-Owned Enterprise that has operated since the 1950s. It develops and supplies pest control tools and products to protect New Zealand’s biodiversity, native ecosystems, and agricultural sustainability. The organisation’s solutions address pests and diseases, including bovine tuberculosis, and are supplied to government agencies like the Department of...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. Directory of Official Information

7. Ministry-of-Justice-June-2022-BIM-to-Minister-Allan-FINAL.pdf [pdf, 5.9 MB]

   ...manifesto priorities, they look to address known issues and are high priorities for the judiciary and, in some cases, for the Minister for Courts and/or the Attorney-General. Managing these projects takes up some of our capacity and means we have to carefully balance progressing government and judicial priorities at times. We will note any trade-offs in advice we provide you on progressing several court-related policy projects in the coming months. s 9(2)(f)(iv) s 9(2)(f)(iv)...

8. Evaluation of Parenting Through Separation programme [pdf, 2.8 MB]

   ‘Parenting Through Separation’ Programme Evaluation of the Evaluation of the ‘Parenting Through Separation’ Programme Prepared for the Ministry of Justice by Jeremy Robertson and Jan Pryor Roy McKenzie Centre for the Study of Families, Victoria University July 2009 Disclaimer All reasonable effort has been made to ensure that the information provide

9. LCRO 194/2017 MA v NB, OC and PD (20 September 2019) [pdf, 344 KB]

   ...lawyers failed to competently represent her, Dr MA references a series of emails exchanges. It is her view that the emails corroborated her view both that the lawyers’ advice was inadequate, and that the lawyers were conflicted. [52] I have carefully considered those emails, the most relevant to Dr MA’s argument being an email forwarded to her on 4 November 2016. 14Jennings v Zilahi-Kiss (1972) 2 SASR 493 (SASC) at 512 cited with...

10. LCRO 105/2018 SW v NL (23 August 2019) [pdf, 292 KB]

    ...acting for Ms SW I make no adverse finding in respect of his contravention of those particular rules. (2) Was Mr NL prevented from acting for both Mr RA and Ms SW? (a) Acting for more than 1 client – r 6.1 [108] Consistent with the consumer protection purposes of the Act and lawyers’ fundamental obligation to protect clients’ interests, r 6 requires that: 14 [i]n acting for a client, a lawyer must, within the bounds of the law and [the rules], protect and promote the intere...