Search Results

1. LCRO 179/2019 HL v [Area] Standards Committee (30 April 2020) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...the evidence that had been adduced through his client. [109] A breach of r 13.5.4 is established. If the Standards Committee was correct to conclude that an unsatisfactory conduct finding was merited, were the penalties imposed appropriate? [110] HL submitted that he had, in taking steps to put the research papers before the Court, acted with the best of intentions. [111] He said that the papers he had assembled were influential, and appropriately peer reviewed. [112] He said...

2. LCRO 13/2019 RA v LO (23 September 2019) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...the undertakings provided protected Ms RA’s interests, but seemingly (and I have no other account of what transpired after the court hearing other than that provided by Ms RA) as a consequence of the undertaking being exercised improperly. [110] I do not conclude that Ms LO promoted the undertaking in order to serve her own interests. The undertaking provided Ms RA with protection against possibility of an adverse order being made, an outcome which Ms LO had concluded in her pr...

3. [2020] NZEmpC 39 Metropolitan Glass & Glazing Ltd v Labour Inspector [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...in the regions and their roles have a regional only focus, any bonus payment will be based on the regional financial performance. 7. Any payments made under this Scheme this year will have a maximum payment amount of 120% based on achieving 110% of the relevant target deliverables. 8. Any payments made under this Scheme are totally at the discretion of Metro's Board of Directors and there is no guarantee of any payment even if the DIFOT, Retrofit & EBIT performance t...

4. [2018] NZEmpC 132 Nicholson v Ford [pdf, 308 KB]

   ...cases in which a penalty has been imposed for breach of an employment agreement. I do not consider that the fact that 18 But see the recent judgment of A Labour Inspector v Prabh Ltd [2018] NZEmpC 110, decided under Part 9A, where two defendant directors were persons “involved in a breach” as defined in s 142W, and had penalties awarded against them of $16,000 each. the breaches in this case fall into the former, rather t...

5. Gwak & Kim TRI-2020-100-006 Procedural Order 5 [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...available to consider the construction and the defects and damage occasioned to the claimants’ home and to respond to the claims against him. The assessors’ reports do not assist in that inquiry. No other party’s documents do either. [110] I have not overlooked that the affidavit of Stephen Hubbick for the third respondent identified and appended a number documents held by Auckland Council on its file. I have reviewed those documents. [111] My view on seriously prejudicia...

6. LCRO 220/2020 UOY - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (3 June 2021) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...Committee to lay a charge before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. Decision [109] Pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed. Anonymised publication [110] Pursuant to s 206(4) of the Act, this decision is to be made available to the public with the names and identifying details of the parties removed. DATED this 03rd day of June 2021 _____________________ R Hesketh Legal Com...

7. [2022] NZIACDT 19 – TA v Tian (Sanctions) (25 July 2022) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...years. It is highly unlikely that a shorter period of reflection and punishment would lead to a greater degree of professionalism on re-entering the profession. 13 See also IK v Tian [2020] NZIACDT 47 at [46]. 14 TA v Tian, above n 1 at [110]. 13 Financial penalty [49] The Registrar submits that $8,000 would be an appropriate penalty. The complainant seeks the maximum penalty of $10,000. There are no submissions from Ms Tian. [50] Ms Tian has previously been o...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 149 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...DHB to defend itself once again in a matter in which it has already been successful. [54] Accordingly, Mr Halse’s application in respect of Directions 1, 2, and 3 is struck out for being an abuse of process. 28 At [43]–[86]. 29 At [110] and [122]. 30 At [152]. 31 H v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [2022] NZCA 260. 32 Singh v Police [2021] NZCA 91. Issue four: Is the judicial review application vexatious? [55] Mr Beech also submitted that the proceedi...

9. [2021] NZREADT 35 - Brady (7 July 2021) [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...similar conduct, in similar circumstances. The Tribunal should impose the least punitive penalty that is appropriate in the circumstances. While there is an element of punishment, rehabilitation is an important consideration.10 [13] Section 110(2) of the Act sets out the orders the Tribunal may make by way of penalty. As relevant to the present case, the Tribunal may: [a] make any of the orders that a Complaints Assessment Committee may make under s 93 of the Act (following a fi...

10. [2022] NZREADT 24 - Complaints Assessment Committee 2103 v Sharma (14 November 2022) [pdf, 258 KB]

    ...should aspire to including any special knowledge, skill, training or experience such person may have when assessing the conduct of the … defendant. 11 Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s 105. 12 Section 109(1). 13 Section 109(4). 14 Section 110. 15 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [101]–[102], & [112]. 16 Morton-Jones v Real Estate Agents Authority [2016] NZHC 1804. 15 [59] So, in summary, the Tribunal must find on...