Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Harder [2022] NZLCDT 29 (23 August 2022) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...leave him alone with Mr S even after he was interrupted. In short, while his judgment may have been “clouded” Mr Harder certainly knew what he was doing, and that it was wrong. [66] Those who are in custody are vulnerable. They are not permitted any freedom of movement and have few options by way of complaint. Mr Harder only gained access to the cells because the custodial officers believed he was a lawyer exercising his functions as such. [67] While Mr Harder refrained...

2. Tamou v Smith - Sections 57, 58, 70, 72 and 100 of the Ratana Pa (2016) 361 Aotea MB 75 (361 AOT 75) [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...deed of trust, and must be exercised accordingly, in the interest of the beneficiaries. A power, even though not a fiduciary power, must be exercised solely in furtherance of the purpose for which it was conferred. [29] Generally the Court is permitted to appoint a new trustee or new trustees, whenever it is expedient per s 51 of the Trustee Act 1956. If it is found inexpedient, difficult, or 12 119 Whanganui MB 201, 206 (...

3. E50 Myfanwy Eaves - Historic Heritage - EIC - Council V2 [pdf, 810 KB]

   ...without prior authority from Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. An Authority is required whether or not the land on which an archaeological site may be present is designated, a resource or building consent has been granted, or the activity is permitted under the Auckland Unitary Plan Operative in part (November 2016). According to the Act (section 6) archaeological site means, subject to section 42(3) – a) any place in New Zealand, including any building or structure (or part...

4. Matchitt v Butler - Matangareka 3B Ahu Whenua Trust (2016) 154 Waiariki MB 261 (154 WAR 261) [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...of s 227A. 9 Rather, that ss 17(1)(b) and 17(2)(c) and (f) are indicators that the Māori Land Court is able to make its own pragmatic assessment as to whether rescission is appropriate. 10 [33] It is also settled law that trustees are not permitted to profit from their trusteeship and to do so is a breach of fiduciary duty. This applies regardless of whether or not the trustee’s actions result in a benefit for a beneficiary. 11 [34] The duty not to profit includes receipt...

5. AB v DE & Ors LCRO 75/2014 (11 July 2016) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules) and effectively ignored 3 other provisions in those rules and was a ruling that there was no effective restraint on the four practitioners and that they were permitted to indulge in illegal activities to protect their client. (c) Misinterpreted legislation in favour of the practitioners complained about. (d) Ignored examples of where the practitioners had acted outside the law and legal prece...

6. [2019] NZEmpC 173 Allied Investments Ltd v Flowers [pdf, 387 KB]

   ...entitlements, but there were occasions when he received less than them. Mr Nevell submitted that meant Mr Flowers had not suffered any detriment because, over time, the position “evened out”. [32] Mr Cranney submitted that such an effect was not permitted under the Act and, even if it was, would only have a neutral outcome provided the employee remained employed. He submitted that, while Mr Flowers may not have a claim for unpaid wages, the roster system could operate to e...

7. Kruger v Nikora - Tuhoe -Te Uru Taumatua [2021] Māori Appellate Court MB 444 (2021 APPEAL 444) [pdf, 296 KB]

   ...that is designed to capture any trust that holds Māori land or General land owned by Māori, including those trusts not constituted under Part 12. That is the intent of s 236, having regard to the scheme in Part 12. This scheme does not easily permit a reading that would exclude some trusts that hold these land statuses. [32] Mr Harman encouraged us to observe that the Preamble, and in particular its reaffirmation of rangatiratanga, imports into the Act a focus that is much broad...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 105 Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd Interlocutory Judgment [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...the application for security an abuse of process? (c) Were Ms Watkins’ financial circumstances caused by Highmark Homes? What are the merits of Ms Watkins’ challenge? [15] Schedule 2 cl 4 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) permits the Authority to reopen an investigation upon such terms as it thinks reasonable. The overarching principle is that a reopening will be granted where it is necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. A miscarriage of justice can occ...

9. EA v BO LCRO 237 / 2010 (29 September 2011) [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...important therefore to examine each Rule to determine the circumstances in which it is to apply. [32] There can only be a finding of unsatisfactory conduct if a specific Rule has been breached. A review of the Rules reveals that this does not permit a Standards Committee to investigate and punish lawyers for conduct outside their professional lives as has been suggested. As noted above, each of the Rules give a clear indication as to the circumstances in which it is to apply, and...

10. NT v OX & B Ltd [2023] NZDT 476 (2 May 2023) [pdf, 248 KB]

    ...this way, did not mitigate their losses, so such costs must be to their account. Further, B Ltd would not be liable for damages of $10,000.00 claimed for distress, time, and harm suffered because these are more than compensatory costs and are not permitted costs for which the Tribunal can award damages. 22. I therefore award total damages of $1,822.67 to the Applicants, calculated as follows: • $870.00, being $435.00 refund per passenger for the value of the domestic flights between...