Search Results

1. Fish & Game - EiC - J W Hayes - Ecological Flow (5 Feb 2021) [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...29 “Safeguard”, “protect” and “maintain”, without qualification, by definition, assume a binary or threshold relationship between an ecological response and the physical environment. For example, safeguarding literally means “protecting” or “keeping safe from harm”; it implies an element of “precaution”. And from an ecological perspective it could be argued that “life-supporting capacity” refers to the capacity of a water body to support life in all i...

2. Rec-Recap-2024-Q1-FINAL.pdf [pdf, 873 KB]

   ...O’Malley [2024] NZCorC 6 (17 January 2024) ....................................................................... 25 Ormond [2024] NZCorC 31 (16 February 2024) ..................................................................... 29 Medical Care ............................................................................................................................ 30 Farrelly [2024] NZCorC 36 (26 February 2024) ........................................................................

3. BOAC v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 50-57 [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...company of some substance was involved. [28] Heath J in Sunset Terraces,6 whose decision was upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court, defined the duty of a local authority as follows: In my judgment, a territorial authority owes a duty of care to anyone who acquires a unit, the intended use of which has been disclosed as residential in the plans and specifications submitted with the building consent application or is known to the Council to be for that then purpose. The du...

4. LCRO 103/2021 & LCRO 58/2022, LCRO 104/2021 and LCRO 105/2021 GS v ABC Ltd & HY, [Law Firm A] v ABC Ltd & HY and SW v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (24 November 2022) [pdf, 595 KB]

   ...FQ (for Ms HY) provided a reply to the lawyers’ response to Ms HY’s complaint on 14 May 2020. It was submitted for Ms HY that the lawyers had: (a) failed at every step of their engagement to fulfil the fundamental obligations and duties of care to Ms HY; and (b) provided erroneous advice in respect to the issue as to whether Ms HY could legally remove ducting from her unit, and improperly counselled Ms HY to defend the proceedings brought in the Tenancy Tribunal by the body c...

5. LCRO 233/2014 IB v KZ (27 June 2018) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...named employee [there is no suggestion the use of this 3 word referred to any other situation but in the witness box, i.e. there was no physical threat to Ms X’s safety]; (f) Mr IB had breached a number of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care (RCCC);1 (g) Mr IB had not acted with integrity, respect and courtesy in detailing how he proposed to treat a witness; and (h) the settlement of the substantive trial did not affect KZ’s wish to continue with their complaint. [11]...

6. LCRO 59/2021 RY v QX (21 December 2022) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...Committee: (a) noted the “differing interpretations” of the trust deed, and the “application” of the Trustee Act 1956 had given rise to VF and OZ seeking Mr QX’s advice; (b) noted lawyers owe their clients a duty “to take reasonable care”, and be competent, but that does not extend to a duty to be right; (c) observed lawyers “routinely reach differing views and interpretations” on matters but it is not the Committee’s role to determine whether a lawyer’s...

7. GZ v TE LCRO 17 / 2011 (17 February 2012) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...sought a copy of the opinion from Mr HD on which Mr GZ advised he had relied. [28] Mr HE responded to Mr TE confirming that he had advised Mr GZ that it was appropriate to apologise for his conduct and that the apology provided by Mr GZ was carefully framed by him as one which he could sincerely make. Mr HE also advised that the opinion from Mr HD was not a written opinion but “rather advice about the contents of the pleadings and correspondence”. [29] In correspondence wit...

8. Scope of inquiry Minute October 2021 plus appendices [pdf, 720 KB]

   ...necessary to preserve such confidentiality, the inquiry must be held, in whole or in part, in private. In addition, the RCOI was required to restrict access to inquiry information where it considered it necessary to do so for reasons including protecting New Zealand’s security or defence interests, protecting the identity of witnesses or other persons, avoiding prejudice to the maintenance of the law, and ensuring protection of fair trial rights. The RCOI was expressly prohibited...

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

   ...which if proven could show a cavalier approach by Mr GA and/or Mr BD to the relevant Nominee Company Rules. Although some of the breaches identified may be “technical” the Committee held the view that the relevant Rules are put in place to protect investors and manage the nominee company transactions. They need to be strictly complied with. The Committee considered each of the issues/conduct in the notice of hearing separately and decided that, if proven, each of them would...

10. AH v ZP LCRO 82/2011 (7 February 2014) [pdf, 134 KB]

    ...details about the client, particularly in respect of N’s age which was alleged to have been misrepresented. [2] Further complaints were subsequently added. These alleged that the Practitioner had breached Rule 2.5 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules (the Rules) 1 in respect of certifications made to the lender concerning both the borrower’s capacity and confirming the identity of her client as the person authorised to lodge the instrument. Related to this was an alleged br...