Search Results

1. National Standards Committee v Jefferies [2016] NZLCDT 29 [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...interest (which include “protection of the public”), to maintain professional standards, to impose sanctions on a practitioner for breach of his/her duties, and to provide scope for rehabilitation in appropriate cases. Tribunals are required to carefully consider alternatives to striking off a practitioner. If the purposes of imposing disciplinary sanctions can be achieved short of striking off then it is the lesser alternative that – in this decision a full bench of the High Co...

2. MOJ0501 Childrens Guide to Separation booklet [pdf, 2.2 MB]

   ...You’ll probably want to keep seeing both your parents. And your grandparents and cousins, aunts and uncles too. Let your parents know. Tell them how Will I still see everyone? If you don’t feel safe with one of your parents, you can be protected from them. It’s your right to be safe all the time, no matter who’s looking after you. If you’re worried about your safety, tell an adult you trust. You can also call the phone numbers listed at the back of this booklet. you...

3. Auckland Standards Committee v Ram [2011] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...payable by the New Zealand Law Society, were also to be reimbursed to the Law Society by Mr Ram. [15] The Tribunal censured Mr Ram, noting that the applicable restrictions on commencing practise on his own account were designed to ensure public protection and to preserve public confidence in the legal profession, key elements of the statutory purposes of the disciplinary regime under LCA. The Tribunal noted that Mr Ram had undertaken various mandates for persons he considered, incorrect...

4. National Standards Committee 1 v Peters [2025] NZLCDT 20 (9 April 2025) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...in the future. [32] Mr Peters is clear that he is now at a different stage of his life and that he has learned a great deal from his recent experiences. He assures the Tribunal that he will not reoffend in the future. 7 [33] We carefully considered the Daniels5 principle of “least restrictive intervention”. We also considered the words of her Honour Winkelmann J in Hart where she said:6 …the manner in which the practitioner has responded to the charges may als...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Name Suppressed [2018] NZLCDT 9 [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...There must also be a duty to act in a professional, candid and straightforward way in dealing with the Society and its representatives …”5 [21] His Honour Cooper J went on to say: “[109] The duties to which I have referred do not exist to protect the sensibilities of those involved in administering the Act’s disciplinary provisions. While courtesy is a normal aspect of professional behaviour expected of a practitioner, it is not an end in itself. The purpose of the disciplina...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2018] NZLCDT 42 [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...Burcher’s actions in breaching r 11.1 and misleading Mr Eades were deliberate, as found by the Tribunal. (d) That the practitioner’s breaches were not one isolated act but involved a series of breaches over a period of time, which displayed a lack of care and regard for his professional obligations. (e) That the practitioner had overlooked the potential conflict between his own personal interests and those of his client Mr M, although the Standards Committee accepts that he of...

7. Wellington Standards Committee v Lester [2015] NZLCDT 23 [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...them of the charges which she has admitted. Her present senior partner expresses confidence in her abilities and by inference confidence in her integrity and the belief that the public can have trust in her such that there is no requirement to protect the profession. [19] The applicant has responsibly acknowledged the mitigating factors that have been advanced on behalf of the respondent. Its primary submission is that the number of charges (the most serious of which is misconduct...

8. OIA-111066.pdf [pdf, 11 MB]

   Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street DX SX10088 | Wellington T 04 918 8800 | F 04 918 8820 ContactUs@justice.govt.nz | www.justice.govt.nz 26 April 2024 Our ref: OIA 111066 Tēnā koe Official Information Act request: Dispute resolution policies Thank you for your email of 4 April 2024, requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), information regarding the Ministry of Justice’s (the Ministry) dispute resolution policies. Specifically,

9. BORA New Zealand Intelligence and Security Bill [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...and c. clauses 153 and 185 create offences for publishing or broadcasting information relating to an Inspector-General’s inquiry or the identity of an employee of an intelligence and security agency. 15. We also note that the amendments to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 limit the scope of whom a protected disclosure may be made to. Clause 267 will replace s 12 of the Protected Disclosures Act to require an intelligence and security agency, or any...

10. LCRO 158/2018 YCH v TSR (30 September 2020) [pdf, 396 KB]

    ...will. [86] Ms TSR denies she met with Mr YCH. She says there was only one meeting, the week after Mr ASR’s death, attended by her, Ms BSR, Mr QSR and Ms UIL. She says at that stage she andMs BSR had not decided which will “would be best to protect” their and Ms UIL’s interests. [87] She says Mr YCH, in his correspondence to the beneficiaries, explained his preference for the 2013 will because his father, an executor under the 1996 will, had died leaving Mr QSR as survi...