Search Results

1. BORA-Advice-Education-and-Training-Amendment-Bill.pdf [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...subject to a property order, or personal order that reflects adversely on their competence to manage their own affairs in relation to their property, or capacity to make or communicate decisions relating to any particular aspect(s) of their personal care and welfare, under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1998. 24. We have previously considered such limits on s 19(1) justified because they are rationally connected to the important objective of ensuring that only those pe...

2. [2024] NZEnvC 130 Yzendoorn v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...[25] A high standard must be met to justify the award of costs against a public body. Unless the public body has failed to perform its duties or it has acted unreasonably, the standard will not be met. [26] Justice Cooke held in Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd that the underlying reason for the high standard is as follows: 14 When a decision-making body exercises statutory powers, it may be appropriate for it to appear and address evidence and submi...

3. UI v T Ltd [2025] NZDT 11 (27 January 2025) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...bar. 11. The Court explained that the "proportionality test" may be "cross-checked" against the "punitive purpose test" – i.e. whether the predominant purpose of the secondary obligation is to punish rather than to protect legitimate performance interests. However, the Court described the tests as "two sides of the same coin". 12. UI submits that the fine of $65.00 is disproportionate to the actual parking fees that would have applied, which...

4. OIA-124266.pdf [pdf, 2.2 MB]

   ...Copies of these documents are attached in Appendix 1 of this letter and my decision on their release is outlined in the table below. Please note, some information has been withheld under the following sections of the Act: • Section 9(2)(a) - to protect the privacy of natural persons; • Section 9(2)(f)(iv) – to maintain the constitutional conventions that protect the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers and officials; and • Section 9(2)(g)(i) – to maintain the effe...

5. [2023] NZEnvC 189 Feeley v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 660 KB]

   ...other lots depicting five associated 48 Rule 24.5.1.6 does not apply. 49 Pfluger EIC, Figure 4. 28 building platforms. [83] Rather, we find that anything additional to a total of six house sites or building platforms would need to be carefully tested for whether it would be contrary to the PDP’s relevant objectives and policies. That is to say, care must be taken to avoid any incremental development that would fail to maintain landscape character and visual amenity va...

6. [2022] NZIACDT 19 – TA v Tian (Sanctions) (25 July 2022) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...having regard to Ms Tian’s record, her attitude to clients and to the disciplinary process, cancellation of her licence is an appropriate step. It is not opposed by Ms Tian who was notified this sanction would be considered.14 The public must be protected. Further comprehensive retraining would not be an adequate protection. There is no evidence the retraining directed in the earlier sanctions decisions has remedied her lack of professionalism. Cancellation is appropriate, no...

7. ZQI v DI [2013] NZIACDT 70 (24 October 2013) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...interim suspension does not contemplate that the Registrar “provide a neutral reflection of the complainant’s concerns and the adviser’s response”. It requires a meaningful evaluation of the substance of the complaint, and its implications for protection of the public, then a determination as to whether the Registrar should initiate a process that will potentially lead to a person being suspended from their profession. The Registrar is required to evaluate complaints and determine...

8. Greyling v Gimranov [2016] NZIACDT 22 (2 May 2016) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...Immigration New Zealand that could permanently affect his client’s immigration prospects; alternatively, the complainant at least understood Mr Woodberg encouraged him to provide false or misleading information. [46] Mr Gimranov did nothing to protect his client when he knew of Mr Woodberg’s conduct, and its effect on his client. He still denies he had professional duties to protect his client from Mr Woodberg’s actions. I am satisfied Mr Gimranov breached the 2014 Code in the respe...

9. LCRO 215/2020 YY v RN (27 September 2021) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...pursuant to s 206(2) of the Act, which allows an LCRO to conduct the review on the basis of all information available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [31] I record that having carefully read the complaint, the response to the complaint, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the application for review, there are no additional issues or questions in my mind that neces...

10. LCRO 28/2024 EB v FI (30 May 2024) [pdf, 190 KB]

    ...(Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 2 Background [4] The applicant was married to Mr DC (Mr DC). It was a second marriage for both. [5] Mr LB says that in 2016, the applicant signed Enduring Powers of Attorney (EPAs) under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (the PPPR Act) in favour of him and his siblings. [6] In December 2021, the applicant signed new EPAs in favour of Mr DC. Mr LB says that the applicant subsequently became concerned abou...