Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. 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...

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. BORA Business Law Reform Bill [pdf, 392 KB]

   ...the provision falls to be justified under section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. 20. The different treatment of large companies is retained because these companies have a significant effect on the New Zealand economy. The provision is intended to protect New Zealand interests which could be supplanted by the broader interests of the company. This can be considered a significant and important objective. 21. The additional reporting requirements are intended protect New Zealand interests...

7. Mohammadalibeigy v Yap [2015] NZIACDT 64 (25 May 2015) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned. [8] When imposing sanctions those statutory purposes require consideration of at least four factors which may materially bear upon maintaining appropriate standards of conduct: [8.1] Protecting the public: Section 3 of the Act states “The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice ...” [8.2] Demanding minimum standards of conduct: Dentice v Valuers Registration...

8. BORA Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...free from unreasonable search and seizure, it is unnecessary to carry out a further analysis under s 5. If a search or seizure is unreasonable it cannot be justified. [4] • The Court of Appeal has said that the “touchstone” of s 21 is the protection of reasonable expectations of privacy: [5] • The main aim of s 21 of the Bill of Rights is to protect privacy interests. It is only where a person's reasonable expectations of privacy have been breached that a personal re...

9. 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...

10. [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...