Search Results

1. [2025] NZEmpC 217 Fuimaono v Ritchies Murphy Transport Solutions Limited [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...order for security is just in all the circumstances. Balancing the interests and consideration of merits [15] The balancing of the interests of the parties is an overriding consideration. This involves balancing Ritchies’ interest to be protected from a barren costs order against Mr Fuimaono’s right to access justice. [16] Mr Fuimaono submits that a substantial order for security will prevent him from pursuing his challenge. The Courts recognise that an order having...

2. 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...

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

   ...6 quite some thought decided as we did. Accordingly, we did not accept the cross- appeal on penalty just as we had not accepted the case for the appellant vendors on penalty. We take the view that, in our penalty decision of 22 May 2015, we carefully covered all appropriate submissions and issues. We also recorded the salient parts of the Committee’s decision which is rather critical in its concerns about the conduct of the licensees. [18] Essentially, Mr Napier is putting it...

4. [2017] EmpC 155 Quality Consumables v Hannah [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...outcome of the proceedings presently in the High Court may be predictable. Concern also needs to be expressed about the position of a director continuing to trade a company when it is clearly insolvent.4 I note in that context that Mr McCormick carefully makes a distinction between cashflow and liquidity. Of course, the plaintiff has filed no evidence in opposition to the application for security for costs to verify the assertions made on its behalf. Also, very little, if any, e...

5. Abellera v Elizabeth [2017] NZIACDT 17 (20 Sept 2017) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...available for repayment. [13] This Tribunal has also repeatedly found that where an agreement fails to properly establish the terms of a professional engagement, often the whole fee must be refunded. That is because the client has not had the protection extended by the client engagement rules in the Code of Conduct. [14] This Tribunal has also considered attempts to force a client to withdraw a complaint they have made to the Authority. It has found that when an adviser offers p...

6. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v McDonnell [2022] NZLCDT 18 (13 June 2022) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...under s 242(g). Ms Pender argued such an order could have symbolic value, but we find that to be unnecessary. In this case there is no prospect of rehabilitation because Mr McDonnell will not practise law again. Thus, there is no future need to protect the public. Our condemnation can satisfactorily be reflected in the terms of this decision, and in censure, compensation and costs. [24] Mr Turkington sought an order for name suppression for Mr McDonnell under s 240 of the Act....

7. MC v IS [2025] NZDT 145 (24 March 2025) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...the next issue is whether IS has committed a legal wrong (a tort) by having soil rather than a scoria pit against the garage wall. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 5 Is there an actionable nuisance? 19. An action for private nuisance protects a person’s right to the use or enjoyment of an interest in land. The interference with use and enjoyment of land must be substantial and unreasonable. If the nuisance causes physical damage or loss of property, the Tribunal has jurisdic...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Van Noort [2017] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...in respect of their small farm property, and on which he was to embark on a wine growing enterprise. [5] The practitioner has acknowledged that in doing so he breached Rule 5.4.3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 which expressly prohibits a lawyer from acting for a client in any transaction in which the lawyer has an interest. That prohibition is eased if the matter is not contentious and also if the interests of the lawyer and clie...

9. Wellington Standards Committee v Skagen [2014] NZLCDT 82 [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...conduct. We note also that it was sustained. We have also had regard to the practitioner’s arrogance in his response to the investigation. We have no confidence that he will not behave in a similar manner in the future. The public is entitled to protection from him. [35] The practitioner has been the subject of earlier charges. The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon found that the practitioner had breached Rules of Professional Conduct by failing...

10. [2024] NZREADT 23 – CAC 2106 v Hu (29 July 2024) [pdf, 255 KB]

    ...(the Committee) with: (1) misconduct under s 73(a) of the Act (disgraceful conduct), or alternatively with misconduct under s 73(c)(iii)(wilful contravention of rr 6.1 and/or 6.3 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (the Rules)), or alternatively; (2) unsatisfactory conduct under s 72(b) (contravention of rr 6.1 and/or 6.3) and/or s 72(d) (work regarded by agents of good standing as unacceptable). [3] The particulars of the charges...