Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2018] NZLCDT 42 [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...Burcher’s actions in breaching r 11.1 and misleading Mr Eades were deliberate, as found by the Tribunal. (d) That the practitioner’s breaches were not one isolated act but involved a series of breaches over a period of time, which displayed a lack of care and regard for his professional obligations. (e) That the practitioner had overlooked the potential conflict between his own personal interests and those of his client Mr M, although the Standards Committee accepts that he of...

2. Mullane v Attorney-General (Request for Documents) [2020] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 621 KB]

   ...following comments by way of assistance: [10.1] The order made by the Tribunal at [117] of its decision prohibiting search of the Tribunal file and directing that Mr Mullane and the Police be notified of any request to search the file was sufficient to protect the evidence on the Tribunal’s file. [10.2] In any event the Public Records Act 2005 appeared to prohibit the removal or destruction of a judicial record. 4 [10.3] It was unclear whether Mr Mullane intended his application...

3. Wellington Standards Committee v Lester [2015] NZLCDT 23 [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...costs. [6] The applicant submitted that the aggravating features of the respondent’s conduct in respect of the charge of misconduct were: (a) Her admission of a reckless breach of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, being Rules 3, 3.2, 3.3, 5.11, 7.1, 7.2, 10, 11, 11.1 and 13.3. (b) The conduct, while not deliberately dishonest, exhibited a high degree of recklessness in that: (i) For 17 months she led her client to believe that the...

4. [2021] NZEnvC 037 Ngai Tamahaua Hapu Committee v Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga [pdf, 782 KB]

   ...been set out in any of the notices of appeal. [21] In conclusion, the Hapu Committee submitted the Court should weigh the purpose and principles of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act in considering their application, in particular the protection and preservation of historical and cultural heritage and the principle ofleast possible alteration or loss. Respondent's Submissions [22] Counsel for HNZPT made brief written submissions. She noted that the scope of the m...

5. Auckland Standards Committee v Ram [2011] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...payable by the New Zealand Law Society, were also to be reimbursed to the Law Society by Mr Ram. [15] The Tribunal censured Mr Ram, noting that the applicable restrictions on commencing practise on his own account were designed to ensure public protection and to preserve public confidence in the legal profession, key elements of the statutory purposes of the disciplinary regime under LCA. The Tribunal noted that Mr Ram had undertaken various mandates for persons he considered, incorrect...

6. Auckland Standards Committee v Lee [2015] NZLCDT 33 [pdf, 36 KB]

   ...to be a deliberate or reckless one. 3. Was the conduct unacceptable and unprofessional? [29] We consider that lawyers of good standing would certainly consider the practitioner’s behaviour unacceptable. He ought to have been scrupulously careful in relation to this matter and awaited the quantification of the costs order against him, paid it promptly and then begun to act after that stage. His failure to do so demonstrates a lack of understanding of his professional obligati...

7. MOJ0501_Childrens-Guide-A5_DEC22_WEB.pdf [pdf, 748 KB]

   ...You’ll probably want to keep seeing both your parents. And your grandparents and cousins, aunts and uncles too. Let your parents know. Tell them how Will I still see everyone? If you don’t feel safe with one of your parents, you can be protected from them. It’s your right to be safe all the time, no matter who’s looking after you. If you’re worried about your safety, tell an adult you trust. You can also call the phone numbers listed at the back of this booklet. you...

8. LCDT - 2013 annual report [pdf, 442 KB]

   ...justice”. The purposes of the Act are set out in s 3 as follows: “3. Purposes (1) The purposes of this Act are - (a) to maintain public confidence in the provision of legal services and conveyancing services: (b) to protect the consumers of legal services and conveyancing services: (c) to recognise the status of the legal profession and to establish the new profession of conveyancing practitioner. (2) To achieve those purposes, this Act, among...

9. [2024] NZEnvC 130 Yzendoorn v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...and expenses incurred in the course of the appeal. Section 285 confers a broad discretion. The Environment Court Practice Note 2023 sets out 5 Joint Memorandum of Counsel dated 5 October 2023. 6 Commerce Commission v Southern Cross Medical Care Society [2004] 1 NZLR 491, at [12]. 7 McMahon v Southland Regional Council C64/2004, at [25]. 8 Ballantyne v Papakura District Council A054/08. 5 guidelines in relation to costs, however it does not create an inflexible rule or practic...

10. [2013] NZEmpC 108 Milne v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 156 KB]

    ...to pay) and, if so, how the Court’s discretion should be exercised under r 5.45(2). [7] In exercising its broad discretion the Court must have regard to the overall justice of the case, and the respective interests of both parties are to be carefully weighed. The balancing exercise is summarised by the Court of Appeal in A S McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd 10 as follows: [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adv...