Search Results

1. WD v KG LCRO 185/2015 [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...He then repeated, and added to his complaints: (a) Lawyer failed to act competently. (b) Lawyer failed to act in a timely manner, in accordance with instructions. (c) Lawyer failed to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients. (d) Lawyer failed to discuss his objectives and how those objectives were to be achieved. (e) Lawyer failed to provide information about the services to be provided. (f) Lawyer failed to act with instru...

2. Legal Aid Practice note - November 2022 [pdf, 389 KB]

   ...applicant may represent themselves, or be represented by a lawyer, or other person. 23. An application for review for a person aged under 16 must be made either by that person’s parents, that person’s guardian, or a person providing day-to-day care to or who is in custody of that person. Clause 16, Regulations 24. A minor aged 16 or over may apply for review in their own right. 25. An application for review for a person who is mentally disordered must be made by a person aged...

3. LCRO 185/2015 WD v KG (6 July 2017) [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...He then repeated, and added to his complaints: (a) Lawyer failed to act competently. (b) Lawyer failed to act in a timely manner, in accordance with instructions. (c) Lawyer failed to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care owed by lawyers to their clients. (d) Lawyer failed to discuss his objectives and how those objectives were to be achieved. (e) Lawyer failed to provide information about the services to be provided. (f) Lawyer failed to act with instru...

4. Vucich & Anor v CAC306 & Ors [2015] NZREADT 54 [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...highest level of unsatisfactory conduct, almost bordering on reckless and wilful. He was fined $3,000 and censured. [9] In its 7 August 2014 decision the Committee stated in general: “In the Committee’s view the licensees were intentionally protecting their own interests and had an obligation to advise both the complainant and the purchasers to seek advice and should not have remained silent. In doing so, they have breached Rule 6.3 of the Rules.” 3 [10] That Rule p...

5. [2020] NZEmpC 58 Kennedy v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...made, will be made following the investigation meeting. Ms Kennedy will have a further opportunity to address the Authority on any application that Oranga Tamariki might make in that regard. [22] In the second minute, Member MacKinnon has made careful directions for the hearing of Ms Kennedy’s evidence and also has allowed for further discussion on additional protections that may be put in place. The directions are appropriate. Costs are reserved [23] If Oranga Tamariki se...

6. Baigent v ACC [2011] NZACA 3 [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...October 2002; (ii) The intended point of law must be ‘capable of bona fide and serious argument’ to qualify for the grant of leave: e.g.; impact manufacturing reported, Doogue J, HC Wellington, AP 266/00, 6 July 2001; 3 (iii) Care must be taken to avoid allowing issues of fact to be dressed up as questions of law; appeals on the former being proscribed: e.g. Northland Cooperative Dairy Co Limited v Ropana [1991] 1ERNZ 361, 363 (CA); (iv) Where an appe...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 26 Tupe v The Board of Trustees of Te Manawa O Tuhoe Trust [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...succeed.4 The Court has a broad discretion to consider whether security for costs should be ordered. In exercising that discretion, regard must be had to the overall justice of the case and the respective interests of both parties need to be carefully weighed up.5 That balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal in AS McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd as follows:6 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an...

8. [2022] NZIACDT 11 - BU v McCarthy (18 May 2022) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...it, uphold it but take no further action or uphold it and impose one or more sanctions.5 [24] The sanctions that may be imposed by the Tribunal are set out in the Act.6 The focus of professional disciplinary proceedings is not punishment but the protection of the public.7 [25] It is the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, that is applicable in professional disciplinary proceedings. However, the quality of the evidence required to meet that standard may differ...

9. LCRO 119/2021 FE v AD of [Firm 1] (14 October 2022) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...relating to Mr FE; and (c) in the course of acting for the company, there was no requirement for him, or obligation on him, to advise Mr FE concerning the $700,000 loan advance; and 1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules). 4 (d) whilst he had acted for Mr FE’s company, he had never acted for Mr FE in his personal capacity; and (e) he held no information confidential to Mr FE, which could have had potential to affect M...

10. ENVC paper Judicial perspective mobile devices in court 2013 [pdf, 40 KB]

    ...not offering the intuitive qualities of Apple iPads, and do not offer the ease of use that is so important for “users of a certain age”. I understand that there are some security limitations with these devices. Security stops at password protection (not encryption). Having said that, I have not yet investigated options, for instance I understand there is an App called iFortress. Meantime, I simply do not use the iPad to draft judgments (I don’t want to leave it on the plane c...