Search Results

1. Chittock v ACC [2014] NZACA 4 [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...Nor does refusing to produce documentation when directed to do so by the Authority generally assist in the presentation of one’s case. The Issues [4] The issues that I have to determine are: [a] Was the 1998 payment for backdated attendant care under s 80 of the 1982 Act for the period from 14 April 1984 to 11 September 1995 made under s 80(1) as ACC contends, or s 80(3) as Mr Wakefield contends? [b] Can the 1998 payment be reliably taken to indicate that ACC was satisfied t...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 137 Service and Food Workers Union Nga Ringa Tota Inc v PACT Group Charitable Trust [pdf, 61 KB]

   ...a “welfare institution” and of a “prison”. A residential welfare institution is arguably for the purpose, or at least the predominant purpose, of the welfare of its residents, whereas a prison is, or is at least predominantly, for the protection of the community and the punishment and rehabilitation of offenders. [9] Although the defendant seeks to rely in its argument that it does not operate residential care facilities upon a determination of the Employment Relations Au...

3. [2017] NZEnvC 172 Motiti Rohe Moana Trust v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...MOANA TRUST (ENV-2015-AKL-000134) Appellant BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent Judges JA Smith and DA Kirkpatrick At Auckland on 18 October 2017 Mr R Enright for Motiti Rohe Moana Trust, and as agent for Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc Ms A Neems for Ngati Makino Heritage Trust, Ngati Ranginui Iwi Incorporated Society Ms M Hill for Bay of Plenty Regional Council Mr J Prebble and Mr N Anderson for the Attorney-General Ms K Jordan for Carru...

4. 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...

5. 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....

6. 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...

7. 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....

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. Complaints Assessment Committee 412 v Grewal, Preet & Co Real Estate Limited, Voordouw & Mason [2018] NZREADT 47 [pdf, 314 KB]

    ...of the Agency1 he signed trust account reconciliations that were incorrect; and [b] a charge under s 73(c) of the Act (charge 5), alleging a wilful or reckless breach of r 7.2 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”), in that he failed to make a report to the Real Estate Agents Authority (“the Authority”) when he had reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr Grewal had been guilty of misconduct. In the alternative, Mr Vo...