Search Results

1. [2020] NZREADT 37 - Eade v Real Estate Agents Authority (25 August 2020) [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...[74] In most cases, the decisions were concerned with representations as to existing features or structures, which were capable of being verified: [a] Donkin: the property was misrepresented as a “legal home and income”, when it was not permitted as such; [b] Fitzgerald: the property was advertised as having a “fully fenced yard” with “plenty of room for the children to play”, when the fence was not on the boundary and when moved to the correct position removed a lar...

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

   ...Associate Judge Doogue in Brown v Cheung,22 the Tribunal agrees with Mr Young that the rule is expressed permissively and therefore does not set a mandatory practice. English (or Maori with translation) is the language used by the Court. The rule permits evidence to be filed in another language with an accompanying interpreter’s affidavit. [49] We accept that r 160 does not prevent the filing of an affidavit in English by a non-English speaker where the Court can be satisfied th...

3. Legal Complaints Review Officer v Hong [2015] NZLCDT 27 [pdf, 407 KB]

   ...incorporated law firm is guilty of misconduct if, at a time when he or she or it is providing regulated services, and without the consent of the High Court or of the Disciplinary Tribunal, the lawyer or incorporated law firm knowingly employs, or permits to act as a clerk or otherwise, in relation to the provision of regulated services, any person who, to the knowledge of the lawyer or incorporated law firm,– (a) is under suspension from practice as a barrister or as a solicitor or as...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 54 Hamon v Coromandel Independent Living Trust [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...[62] These heads also included an assertion in evidence that Mr Noonan accused Ms Hamon of “double dipping” into TEC funding. There was no evidence that Mr Noonan prevented Ms Hamon from pursuing her activities with Wahine Ora. She was permitted to, and did, deliver two Poutama courses while employed by CILT. No evidence, which would have been available from Wahine Ora students or other third parties, was called by Ms Hamon to corroborate this assertion. Mr Noonan did not...

5. TC vs Mr & Mrs SH LCRO 234/2014 [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...trifling. They go to the heart of a client’s right to understand the work that is being done, and its consequences for them. The breaches involve the failure to provide basic and essential information. [162] In addition, the legislation does not permit a Standards Committee or this Office to reduce a lawyer’s fees without first making a finding of unsatisfactory conduct. It is appropriate in this case for the fees to be reduced. [163] Accordingly, the findings of unsatisfacto...

6. v2.3-Induction-guide-for-legal-aid-providers-April-2017.pdf [pdf, 714 KB]

   ...evidence are large and complex and there’s a substantial volume of documentary evidence. The Crown must also be represented by at least 2 counsel. The junior counsel takes a secondary role under the supervision of the lead provider and isn’t permitted to undertake the substantive hearing even if the lead provider is unavailable. Junior counsel can be of a lower listing approval category than the lead provider and will be remunerated up to their own approval category (not the proce...

7. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 1 v Campion [2019] NZLCDT 20 [pdf, 582 KB]

   ...indicated that the only evidence it would accept from Mr Campion was the oral evidence which had been given by him on 12 March and transcribed, and in respect of which he was to be cross-examined at the 14 May hearing. No further evidence was permitted to be filed by the practitioner because of his flagrant disregard of previous directions. [19] Because the hearing had to resume with two changes of members, the Tribunal determined that it should start the matter afresh on the basis...

8. [2021] NZEmpC 117 Zara’s Turkish Ltd (in liquidation) v Kocaturk [pdf, 378 KB]

   ...Mr and Mrs Kokcu, and Mr Akbaba, all said that the previous arrangements were revised when Mr Kocatürk arrived in New Zealand and not before. [37] What was not disputed is that an amendment to Mr Kocatürk’s visa was made in February 2010 permitting him to work for Zara’s Turkish. By that time, he had been in the country for several months. [38] What happened from October 2009 until mid-March 2010 is a significant part of Mr Kocatürk’s challenge. Mr and Mrs Kokcu sai...

9. [2013] NZEmpC 39 Rittson-Thomas t/a Totara Hills Farm v Davidson [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...only justified if an employer’s business was failing. The Labour Court’s conclusion was, therefore, that the dismissal was unjustified. [50] The Court of Appeal in GN Hale held against the Labour Court’s assertion that redundancies are only permitted in failing businesses. Importantly for present purposes, the Court of Appeal made it clear that it was not for the Court (or now the Authority) to substitute its decision for that of the employer on these questions. So, in prac...

10. Wellington Standards Committee v Laglolago [2015] NZLCDT 25 [pdf, 325 KB]

    ...information, or matter would be admissible in a court of law. (2) The Disciplinary Tribunal may take evidence on oath, and, for that purpose, any member of the Disciplinary Tribunal may administer an oath. 9 (3) The Disciplinary Tribunal may permit a person appearing as a witness before it to give evidence by tendering a written statement and verifying that statement by oath. (4) Subject to subsections (1) to (3), the [Evidence Act 2006] applies to the Disciplinary Tribunal...