Search Results

1. KS v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 540 (10 July 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...right and owners must ensure that the vehicle can be removed without damage and in an orderly way. Further the landowner is required to ensure that the trespasser’s property is protected until the vehicle owner can regain possession. [6] I have carefully considered this claim and all the evidence put before me over two hearings. I am persuaded on the balance of probabilities that the applicant was given adequate notice of the restrictions on the use of the car park and that the applic...

2. Consultation response report [pdf, 745 KB]

   ...proceeds of proceedings ........................................................................................... 7 Retain all closed legal aid files for a minimum of 7 years ................................................................... 7 Protecting the Commissioner’s interest .............................................................................................. 7 Conclusion ....................................................................................................

3. PA v Standards Committee LCRO 267/2014 (30 June 2015) [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...decisions to refer matters to the Tribunal. The Court noted that: 4 The protection to the practitioner once afforded by the threshold test [in the Law Practitioners Act] is thus now met by other means. The oversight of the LCRO should also assist in protecting the resources of the Tribunal and prevented it from being overwhelmed by petty or trivial cases. [38] Several decisions from this Office have emphasised the need for this Office to proceed with caution when considering wh...

4. LCRO 131/2024 RD v PS (28 January 2025) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...decision. [57] Pursuant to s 206(4) of the Act, a Review Officer may direct such publication of his or her decision as the Review Officer considers necessary or desirable in the public interest. “Public interest” engages issues such as consumer protection, public confidence in legal services and the interests and privacy of individuals. [58] Having had regard to the issues raised by this review, I have concluded that it is desirable in the public interest that this decision be publi...

5. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 DM expert Dennis Scott [pdf, 364 KB]

   ...within this contextual landscape and remains as the most significant settlement and active recreational/tourist resource in the Hauraki Gulf. 8 37. Importantly, as the ‘gateway’ to Waiheke Island, in my view, Matiatia needs to be protected as the most critical entry landscape ‘brand’ in the inner Gulf Island playground. THE WESTERN ENTRANCE HEADLAND AND MATIATIA 38. My evidence now focusses on Matiatia Bay and the important contextual landscape in which it i...

6. CAC10064 v Vinodh [2013] NZREADT 21 [pdf, 27 KB]

   ...imposed after the Tribunal’s decision dated 7th December 2011. In this decision Mr Vinodh was found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct. [2] The principles of sentencing are: A penalty must fulfil the following functions. They are: a) Protecting the public Section 3 of the Real Estate Agents Act provides that this is one of the purposes of the Act. b) Maintenance of professional standards This was emphasised in Taylor v The General Medical Council1 and Dentice v...

7. Wellington Standards Committee v Faulkner [2012] NZLCDT 9 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...and her good name will be long lasting and deeply significant and will no doubt affect her for the rest of her life. [4] The purpose of this Tribunal is different from the Criminal Court. There is not a focus of punitive response but rather a protection of the public, and of the standing and protection of the legal profession, in dealing with people who transgress in this way. [5] We are asked to make an order under section 242(1)(h)(ii) that Ms Faulkner not be employed by any...

8. BORA Hineuru Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...the Crown and have those heard according to law in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals. However, clauses 26(3) and 30 respectively affect the substantive law and do not fall within the ambit of s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights, which protects procedural rights. [4] Review of this advice 10. This advice has been reviewed in accordance with Crown Law protocol by Peter Gunn, Crown Counsel. Debra Harris Crown Counsel Disclaimer In addition to the gener...

9. BORA Affiliate Te Arawa Iwi and Hapu Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...namely the right to bring civil proceedings against the Crown and have those heard according to law in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals. 10. This clause affects the substantive law and does fall within the ambit of s 27(3), which protects procedural rights [4]. Accordingly, no inconsistency with s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights arises. 11. This advice has been reviewed, in accordance with Crown Law protocol, by Ben Keith, Crown Counsel. Yours sincerely Fergus Sincl...

10. BORA Nga Rohe Moana o Nga Hapu o Ngati Porou Bill [pdf, 202 KB]

    ...Subpart 4 appears to create no greater limitation on public access than currently exists. Section 27(2)– The Right to Judicial Review 6. Section 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act provides: “Every person whose rights, obligations or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination.” 7. Clause 108 excludes the jurisdict...