Search Results

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

   ...of investigations by the Complaints Service the Standards Committee resolved to commence an own motion investigation in that it appeared ABC firm had not provided the client information as required by Rules 3.4 and 3.5 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules12 until 2 September 2010. [26] Following receipt of the judgment Mr CS lodged his second complaint. This focused on the conduct of the hearing by Mr HT and Mrs LM and alleged:13 1. HT [sic] has been professionally negligent in th...

2. PC v OR [2021] NZDT 1341 (8 April 2021) [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...$650.00. 3. Although OR was named personally as a respondent, I am satisfied that the contract was with T Limited and the claim against OR cannot succeed. 4. The issues I must consider are: a. Were the services carried out with reasonable care and skill as required by s 28 CGA? b. If not, what remedy is appropriate? Were the services carried out with reasonable care and skill as required by s 28 CGA? 5. Where services are supplied to a consumer, s 28 of the Consumer Guaran...

3. GA & BD v X SC LCRO 186/2013 (5 May 2014) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...What I do question is whether this is the right approach to breaches of the Nominee Company Rules, whether major or minor, and whether causative of loss or otherwise. If, as Mr T [Counsel for the lawyer] contends, there is little or no duty of care by a lawyer to contributors to a firm’s nominee company, then there is no room to excuse errors or lapses in compliance with the Rules however minor. [64] I consider that Standards Committees should insist on strict compliance with...

4. LCRO 7/2018 AB v CD (26 November 2019) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...made by Mr CD, entered an unsatisfactory conduct finding in respect to complaint that Mr AB had failed to provide Mr CD with an itemised account or breakdown of his fees. Background [2] Mr CD instructed Mr AB to defend an application for a final protection order. [3] The application had been made by a former girlfriend of Mr CD’s. [4] The application did not proceed to hearing. [5] Mr AB negotiated a settlement which provided that the temporary protection order that was then i...

5. Tapiki and Eru v New Zealand Parole Board [2019] NZHRRT 5 [pdf, 403 KB]

   ...with his mother the Special Conditions stipulated that Jesse was to live at her home and not move without the prior written approval of a probation officer. [12] Ms Tapiki explained to the Tribunal that in the lead up to the progress hearing much careful thought and preparation by her and Ms Eru had occurred because given Jesse’s three prior releases and two recalls, they wanted to ensure that this time, with strong family support, he would have a real chance for reintegration into the...

6. LCRO 22/2019 HT v MK (29 May 2020) [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...(2) Share sale agreement – preparation – issue (b) (a) Negligence claim (i) Parties’ positions [102] Mr HT says Mr MK was negligent in drafting the share sale agreement which contained “a raft of errors”, in particular (a) no “protective measure[s]” to “ensure” settlement, and (b) the number of sale shares, and option shares.42 He claims he suffered loss as a consequence. 41 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Com...

7. BORA Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...unreasonable search and seizure. In our opinion, the search and seizure powers accorded to the Auditor-General are reasonable in terms of section 21, particularly in light of the objectives of the Bill. The Public Audit also provides the following protections: (a) the circumstances in which the Auditor-General’s search and seizure powers may be invoked are limited to the exercise of his or her functions, duties or powers under the Bill; (b) the powers conferred on the Auditor...

8. BORA Health Practitioners (Replacement of Statutory References to Medical Practitioners) Bill [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...• Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992 • Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 Consistency with the Bill of Rights Act Section 21 – Security against unreasonable search and seizure 6. Section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act protects against unreasonable search and seizure. There are two limits to the section 21 right. Section 21 is applicable only in respect of those activities that constitute a "search or seizure", and protects only against those search...

9. Media Protocol 2017 - Youth Courts [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...suppression of these details as they are automatically suppressed. A Judge can never approve publication of these details. These details include: a. The name of the child or young person or the names of the parents or guardians or any person having care of the child or young person. b. The name of any school the child or young person is or was attending. c. Any other name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person or of any school that the...

10. 2019 Youth Court Protocol [pdf, 150 KB]

    ...suppression of these details as they are automatically suppressed. A Judge can never approve publication of these details. These details include: a. The name of the child or young person or the names of the parents or guardians or any person having care of the child or young person. b. The name of any school the child or young person is or was attending. c. Any other name or particulars likely to lead to the identification of the child or young person or of any school that the ch...