Search Results

1. Morton v Marshall [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...responsibility”. [26] He went on to say that: “There are two things to be said about these cases and the approach to problems of this kind. The first is that limited liability means what it says. Secondly, companies, by their nature, must act through human agency and mere actions on Claim No. 3483 – Determination 9 behalf of a company do not of themselves provide a basis for alleging that the agent, by whom the company has acted, has thereby become subject to a person...

2. BORA Maritime Security Bill [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...efforts must be made to avoid a ship that has been expelled being unduly detained or delayed (clause 30(5)(c)) • persons (including both crew members and passengers) who are on board a ship that has been expelled may leave the ship for emergency or humanitarian reasons (clause 30(5)(d)) • the exclusion of unauthorised persons from a port security area does not apply to passengers or crew members boarding or disembarking a ship that is situated in the port security area (clause 45(6...

3. BORA Psychoactive Substances Bill [pdf, 334 KB]

   ...Prosecutions [2004] UKHL 43, [2005] 1 AC 264. 31. Clause 80. 32. For example, by issuing advice to the public, withdrawing approval or taking steps to recall a product from sale. 33. Clauses 46–48. 34. Clause 49. 35. Bill of Rights Act, s 19(1); Human Rights Act 1993, s 21(1)(i). 36. Ministry of Health v Atkinson [2012] NZCA 184, [2012] 3 NZLR 456 at [55] and [109]; McAlister v Air New Zealand Ltd [2009] NZSC 78, [2010] 1 NZLR 153 at [51] and [105]. Comparably situated groups in t...

4. CO v IBU [2011] NZIACDT 4 (14 February 2011) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...contemplates a complaint being upheld without necessarily imposing a sanction. It follows it is not necessary to find a disciplinary sanction is required to uphold a complaint. However, it is important to recognise that not every lapse or manifestation of human frailty should result in an adverse professional disciplinary finding. It follows there will be occasions when advisers are responsible for a lapse from acceptable standards; but still not justify upholding a disciplinary complaint...

5. CO v DSI [2011] NZIACDT 5 (14 February 2011) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...complaint being upheld without necessarily imposing a sanction. It follows it is not necessary to find a disciplinary sanction should be imposed to uphold a complaint. However, it is important to recognise that not every lapse or manifestation of human frailty should result in an adverse professional disciplinary finding. It follows there will be occasions when advisers are responsible for a lapse from acceptable standards; but still not justify upholding a disciplinary complaint. [29]...

6. ETS v WKE [2013] NZIACDT 4 (05 February 2013) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...complaint being upheld without necessarily imposing a sanction. It follows that it is not necessary to find that a disciplinary sanction should be imposed to uphold a complaint. It is important to recognise that not every lapse or manifestation of human frailty should result in an adverse professional disciplinary finding. There will be occasions when advisers are responsible for a lapse from acceptable standards, but that still does not justify upholding a disciplinary complaint. [...

7. TSO v Hassan [2013] NZIACDT 52 (16 August 2013) [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...[57] Section 50 contemplates a complaint being upheld without necessarily imposing a sanction. It follows that it is not necessary to find that a disciplinary sanction should be imposed to uphold a complaint. Not every lapse or manifestation of human frailty should result in an adverse professional disciplinary finding. There will be occasions when advisers are responsible for a lapse from acceptable standards, but that still does not justify upholding a disciplinary complaint. [58...

8. BI v YP & Ors LCRO 115 / 2010 (4 April 2011) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...service, which appears to be the rule relevant to the complaint. Rule 3.1 states: 6 3.1 A lawyer must at all times treat a client with respect and courtesy and must not act in a discriminatory manner in contravention of section 21 of the Human Rights Act. [22] The Applicant considered that the Standards Committee had not explicitly addressed this part of her complaint. I noted that the reasons for the Standards Committee’s decision included the following: It was the la...

9. [2017] EmpC 92 P v A [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...is the People and Culture Manager for A. She is based in the 1 Employment Court Regulations 2000, r 19(2). New Plymouth branch of the defendant company, but her role is to perform the human resources function for the defendant on a national basis. [6] In C’s affidavit, she sets out the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s delay in filing a statement of defence to the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff clearly s...

10. Regulatory Impact Statement: Order of Inquiries to determine fitness to stand trial under the Criminal Procedure (Mentally Impaired Persons) Act 2003 [pdf, 600 KB]

    ...subsequently dealing with unfit defendants. This meant that a person could be found unfit to stand trial and placed into secure care, even though that person had not committed the alleged offence. We consider this possible outcome to unacceptably limit human rights, natural justice and procedural fairness. 18. Not prescribing the order of the two inquiries was also considered infeasible. A variable approach would undermine procedural fairness and the certainty and consistency o...