Search Results

1. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Simes [2012] NZLCDT 4 [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...misconduct and one of unsatisfactory conduct. [2] The misconduct charge alleged that between 28 May 2009 and 23 June 2009, Ms Simes had wilfully or recklessly contravened Rules 11 and 11.3 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (“CCC Rules”). [3] The unsatisfactory conduct charge alleged that between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2009, Ms Simes was a party to offences under Sections 24 and 26 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. [4] The Tri...

2. Appeal Against Penalty Olde-Olthof & Anor v REAA CAC 20005 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 37 [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...that the customer can seek expert advice if the customer so chooses.” General Principles [13] We agree with counsel for the Authority that decisions of industry disciplinary tribunals should emphasise the maintenance of high standards and the protection of the public (through both specific and general deterrence). While this may mean that orders made in disciplinary proceedings have a punitive effect, this is not their purpose – Z v CAC [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97]. As McGrath J said...

3. Moctezuma v Chase-Seymour [2013] NZIACDT 40 (26 June 2013) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...Tribunal is required to weigh the public interest against Ms Chase- Seymour’s interests. [59] When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty that, short of exclusion from a profession, a person will not reoffend. This Tribunal must carefully weigh the circumstances. It is appropriate to place an element of considered trust in a practitioner who has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [60] A significant factor in this case is that it involves dishonesty...

4. [2006] NZEmpC AC 54/06 Yuan Cheng International Investment Group Ltd v Buer [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...addressed the decision of Pearce v Attorney-General in respect of the Department of Labour [2005] 1 ERNZ 731. That was a case where the full Court of the Employment Court considered the effect of an amendment to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 on the interpretation of the original section. The Court accepted there were three possibilities that can be gained from the authorities: • The original legislation was ambiguous and therefore the amending legislatio...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...defined in s 241(c)?3 5. If not, did unsatisfactory conduct occur? Background [5] Ms Fendall is a practitioner of many years’ experience who has primarily specialised in representing young people in the Youth Court. [6] Having taken out income protection insurance in 2002, she made her first claim under the policy in September 2009. Her claim was accepted because she was suffering from depression. [7] This was the first claim period of two periods which are under consideratio...

6. LCRO 121/2023 AI v HR (12 December 2023) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...require their lawyers to obtain valuations of, or to advise them about the values of, the relationship property. 1 Separation and Relationship Property Agreement (6 March 2018) (the agreement). 3 [13] The agreement contained a further lawyer protection clause which read as follows: The parties hereby acknowledge and agree that in executing this Agreement they have not relied on the other parties (sic) legal advisers and they hereby cross indemnify the other party’s legal advis...

7. 25072025-Electoral-Amendment-Bill [pdf, 581 KB]

   ...influencing a person’s choice whether to vote or not, for example. Treating and undue influence 50. The proposed amendments to the offences of treating and undue influence appear consistent with the NZBORA.52 Either the proposals are consistent with protected rights such as s 12, by positively upholding the integrity of the electoral system, or to the extent that they impose limits on protected rights, those limits are justified given (i) the important goal of preserving electoral int...

8. [2024] NZEnvC 182 Beresford v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   BUNKER & ROUSE v QLDC – DECISION IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 182 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act BETWEEN M J BERESFORD, R T BUNKER & L M ROUSE (ENV-2018-CHC-69) Appellants AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Environment Judge S Tepania Environ

9. Ōamaru Courthouse to be re-opened

   ...Waitaki Council will also be able to use the building outside court sitting hours for council-related activities, such as community meetings, civil defence and emergency situations, and other community purposes. “The sharing of the building will be done carefully so as to protect the confidentiality and security requirements of the court,” says Mr Gibbs. The Ōamaru Courthouse was closed in December 2011 after building inspections found it fell below minimum strength and safety standards. T...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. News & media >
   3. News & media archive >
   4. Media release archive

10. 2021-07-07 ORC - Closing Submissions [pdf, 422 KB]

    ...Court’s decision in EDS v King Salmon remains the leading authority for interpreting superior planning documents:7 [129] When dealing with a plan change application, the decision-maker must first identify those policies that are relevant, paying careful attention to the way in which they are expressed. Those expressed in more directive terms will carry greater weight than those expressed in less directive terms. Moreover, it may be that a policy is stated in such directive terms...