Search Results

1. LCRO 184/2020 BC v NP and RS decision & minute (20 May 2021 & 30 April 2021) [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...services provisions of the Act?: 24 See Orlov v New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal [2014] NZHC 1987 at [97] and following. This approach has been followed in the Tribunal: see Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Eichelbaum [2014] NZLCDT 68 at [30]. 25 See Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 26 at [44]. 26 See A v Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 [2015] NZHC 1896 at [60]. 15 Unsatisfactory conduct (s 12(c)) [97] As in...

2. National Standards Committee 1 v Young [2020] NZLCDT 20 (10 July 2020) [pdf, 289 KB]

   ...silent as to whether the charges were owed to him or his employer.24 Mr Young’s employment with Avondale Law ended by 10 November 2017.25 23 Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Eichelbaum [2014] NZLCDT 68. 24 Bundle p 35. 25 Bundle p 86. 20 [73] On or around 20 November 2017, Mr Young sent Mr Z a WeChat message in Chinese script stating: “Please withdraw from the Law Society, or do you need to ask a ju...

3. LCRO 236/2020 TB - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (13 December 2021) [pdf, 580 KB]

   ...34 Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35 See Orlov v New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal [2014] NZHC 1987 at [97] and following. This approach has been followed in the Tribunal: see Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Eichelbaum [2014] NZLCDT 68 at [30]. 36 See Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 26 at [44]. 37 See Mr A v Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 [2015] NZHC 1896 at [60]. 31 [200] With the exception of the May – July...

4. LCRO 111/2021 New Zealand Law Society v AP (10 January 2022) [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...breach, should not generally be 24 See Orlov v New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal [2014] NZHC 1987 at [97] and following. This approach has been followed in the Tribunal: see Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Eichelbaum [2014] NZLCDT 68 at [30]. 25 In Mr A v Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 [2015] NZHC 1896 it was held at [60] that “conduct ‘that occurs at a time when the lawyer is providing regulated services’ … does not require ther...

5. Harland v ACC [2014] NZACA 13 [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...was in no different position than the Deportation Review Tribunal in Browne v Minister of Immigration [1990] NZAR 67, 69 – 70. This case did not, however, concern an appeal to which the wrong file number was allocated by a Registrar, but what Eichelbaum CJ described as a complete re-hearing of a case that had been properly decided and in which it was not a matter only of “the procedure of the Tribunal”, but a significant aspect of jurisdiction. [16] Mr McBride also relied upon...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v O'Boyle [2021] NZLCDT 15 (29 April 2021) [pdf, 381 KB]

   ...qualities, the public may lack confidence in the profession as a whole.73 A candidate in Australia was refused admission because of a lack of “appropriate professional judgement and discretion.”74 In New Zealand, in a case regarding a valuer, “Eichelbaum CJ reviewed the concept of professional misconduct generally and noted that across all professions the key element is whether the practitioner’s conduct has shown some degree of unfitness to practise.”75 [83] Considerin...

7. LCRO 40/2023 DG v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (13 March 2024) [pdf, 497 KB]

   ...seriousness that the word itself, on a dictionary definition, would not convey. However, it is clear that misconduct is a very serious professional wrongdoing. [Citation omitted] [225] And further:43 In Dentice v Valuers Registration Board, Eichelbaum CJ reviewed the concept of professional misconduct generally and noted that across all professions the key element is whether the practitioner’s conduct has shown some degree of unfitness to practise. Where that degree of unfitness...

8. Miscarriage of justice - Scott Watson - K McDonald's final report March 2011 [pdf, 2 MB]

   ...proved not to have been at either crime scene and a purpose of that Inquiry was to explain how the match was obtained. The report dated 30 November 1999 (Report on DNA Anomalies For Hon Tony Ryall, then Minister of Justice by Rt Hon Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, former Chief Justice of New Zealand, and Professor Sir John Scott, 4 1 President of the Royal Society), concluded that on the balance of probabilities there had been accidental contamination of the DNA extracted from the scene...

9. Proactive-release-OIA-review-Aug22.pdf [pdf, 30 MB]

   Hon Kris Faafoi Minister of Justice Proactive release – Briefing: Official Information Act 1982 – report back on targeted engagement and next steps Released: 7 December 2021 Initially released: 22 August 2020 The following documents have been proactively released by the Ministry of Justice. The initial release of this information in March 2020 included the Briefing and Attachment to the Briefing (documents 1& 2). The subsequent release in December 2021 included the Submis