Search Results

1. Reid v Fire Services and Crown Law (Recall Application) [2012] NZHRRT 27 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...[it] thinks fit”) that a re-hearing is not a matter of procedure. It is a significant aspect of jurisdiction and the power to regulate procedure cannot be used to increase jurisdiction. See Browne v Minister of Immigration [1990] NZAR 67, 69-70 (Eichelbaum CJ). To similar effect see Akewushola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 2 All ER 148 (CA) at 153j where Sedley LJ, delivering the judgment of the Court, stated: For my part I do not think that, slips apart, a sta...

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

   LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2021] NZLCRO 205 Ref: LCRO 236/2020 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN TB Applicant AND APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A PROSECUTORIAL DECISION DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been chang

3. 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...

4. [2021] NZREADT 52 - QH v KE, SE & Agency (14 October 2021) [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...2021, QH responded to the objection to the introduction of further evidence, notably the first page of the valuation report. He says that at the start of the process, he was told to provide the bare minimum of evidence 16 Nottingham, above n 8; Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303) [2016] NZREADT 3 at [47]–[52]; Moseley v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 1907) [2021] NZREADT 19 at [59]. 17 to prove that the advertising was false. He now knows that he needs...

5. 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...

6. Eichelbaum report - appendices [pdf, 540 KB]

   ...asked to consider whether `there are features of the investigation and/or interviews of the children which may have affected the reliability of the children's evidence, and if so, their likely impact' (letter of instruction from Sir Thomas Eichelbaum, 24.7.2000). In this connection, I have been supplied with (i) videotaped records of interviews with all children who were interviewed as part of the original investigation and who gave evidence at trial or depositions; and (ii) complete...

7. 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...

8. 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...

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

   ORDER MADE PURSUANT TO S 240 OF THE LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS ACT 2006 FOR PERMANENT SUPPRESSION OF NAMES AS SPECIFIED IN PARAGRAPH [125] OF THIS DECISION. NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2021] NZLCDT 15 LCDT 021/20 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 4 Applicant AND LYNETTE O’BOYLE Practitioner DEPUTY CHAIR Judge J G Adams MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL

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

    LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2024] NZLCRO 162 Ref: LCRO 40/2023 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING an application for review of a prosecutorial decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN DG Applicant AND [AREA] STANDARDS COMMITTEE [X] Respondent REISSUED DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision ha