Search Results

1. BORA Motor Vehicle Sales Amendment Bill [pdf, 377 KB]

   ...4. The penalty for this offence, prescribed in section 118 of the Act, is $50,000 for an individual and $200,000 for a body corporate. 5. We have considered whether this clause is a prima facie breach of section 9 of the Bill of Rights Act, which protects the right not to be subjected to disproportionately severe punishment. We note that the penalty is high for an offence which we consider is regulatory in nature. We further note that, while other sections in the Motor Vehicle Sales Act a...

2. National Standards Committee 1 v Peters [2020] NZLCDT 34 (27 October 2020) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...appropriate to recognise the professional breach. 6 Orders 1. There will be a censure of the practitioner in the following terms. Censure Mr Peters, as you are now acutely aware, you have breached a fundamental duty of lawyers to “protect and hold in strict confidence all information concerning a client”. Members of the public must be able to speak with their lawyers with complete confidence and trust that their communications and presentation will remain private....

3. McCreath v Attorney-General (Interim Non-Publication Order) [2014] NZHRRT 59 [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...granted the court or tribunal must identify and weigh the interests of both the public and the individual seeking publication. [11] In the present case the affidavits by Nurse A and Nurse B establish: [11.1] They provided immediate and appropriate care to Mr McCreath and appear to have been named as defendants simply because their initials appear in the Controlled Drugs signing sheet as having administered controlled medication to Mr McCreath on 21 April 2012. Their names were provided...

4. Maori Land Court Recusal Guidelines [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...consideration will be needed in situations where a judge’s spouse, partner or a family member has an involvement or a financial interest in the outcome of a proceeding. Disclosure of conflict of interest Principles Adequate disclosure protects the integrity of the judicial process and is also a defence against later challenges to the decision. Disclosure does not constitute an acknowledgement that the circumstances give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias....

5. LCRO 124/2018 BK v [Area] Standards Committee (25 February 2020) [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...statements as to whether or not their client was the settlor of any funds. The attempt to correct this issue does not amount to a complete answer to all the issues the judge identified. [16] The lawyer also observed the lawyer’s evidence was carefully scrutinised by senior lawyers, including a prominent lawyer. That does not relieve the lawyer of the responsibility for the evidence provided, as they had the duty to the Court. Further, the scrutinising lawyers would have only had i...

6. LCRO 149/2023 HV v BQ (29 April 2024) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...received such an 2 explanation, it is unlikely she would have made her fees complaint or expressed the understandings she expressed in it. [5] The applicant emphasises that his fees were “cheap”. The answer to that submission is that client care under the Rules is not assessed solely in terms of outcome and cost but also in terms of information, communication and understanding of the legal process. [6] The applicant’s breach of r 13.4 is less material. In particular, I h...

7. Mayfair Street Units v Spargo [pdf, 323 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2009-101-15 and 18 BETWEEN DAVID ALFRED FRANKLIN and DIANE HOLROYD FRANKLIN – Claimants in TRI 2009- 101-15 AND NGAIRE ANN SHERWIN and HTT 2003 LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE KEREOPA WHANAU TRUST– Claimants in TRI 2009-101-18 – known as MAYFAIR STREET UNITS Claimants AND LYNN and MERLYN SPARGO First Respondents AND NORFOLK HOMES LIMITED Second Respondent AND LINDSAY MACK Third Respondent AND GIANNE MARCHE

8. [2020] NZEmpC 165 Culturesafe NZ Ltd v Turuki Healthcare Services Charitable Trust [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...The claim amounts to a claim to obtain a right to a defamation action without a defence. (c) The disputed correspondence attracted qualified privilege. (d) The plaintiffs were entitled to correspond with Ministers by virtue of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. (e) The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA) protected their correspondence. (f) The Authority Member should have considered recusing himself after CultureSafe made complaints about him. [48] I...

9. LCRO 8/2022 QQ v LW (8 October 2024) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...Mr FM was not prejudiced in any way. That must necessarily be a subjective assessment and, whether or not it is correct, does not alter the fact that Mr QQ interfered with the relationship between Mr LW and his client. [127] The community must be protected from interference in the relationship between a client and his or her lawyer of choice and the profession must be protected from interference by another lawyer in that relationship. [128] I am firmly of the view that it is in the int...

10. BORA Taxation (Base Maintenance and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [pdf, 86 KB]

    ...Act. The release of this advice should not be taken to indicate that the Attorney-General agrees with all aspects of it, nor does its release constitute a general waiver of legal professional privilege in respect of this or any other matter. Whilst care has been taken to ensure that this document is an accurate reproduction of the advice provided to the Attorney-General, neither the Ministry of Justice nor the Crown Law Office accepts any liability for any errors or omissions....