Search Results

1. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Tee [2013] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 50 KB]

   ...[2002] NZAR 452; and Complaints Committee No.1 of the Auckland District Law Society v C [2008] 3 NZLR 105. 5 His conduct is properly described as disgraceful or dishonourable – Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282. 6 For example, his conduct breaches ss 110 – 112 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. 7 Rule 5.8.1. 9 charges were laid. This history, which forms part of the formal record of our determination, shows continuing delay, lack of cooperation in the disciplinary process itse...

2. CAC20004 v Li & Ors [2015] NZREADT 6 [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...Committee. (2) An order under this section may be made on and subject to any terms and conditions that the Committee think fit.” 3 [6] In relation to our having found Ms Wang guilty of misconduct, we may make any of the orders set out in s.110(2) of the Act which provides: “110 Determination of charges and orders that may be made if charge proved … (2) The orders are as follows: (a) 1 or more of the orders that can be made by a Committee under section 93: (b) an...

3. Rudd Senior v Procter - Horowhenua 11 Lake Trust [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 107 (2012 APPEAL 107) [pdf, 145 KB]

   RUDD SENIOR V PROCTER MAC 2012 Maori Appellate Court MB 107 [2 March 2012] IN THE MAORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT 2012 Maori Appellate Court MB 107 (2012 APPEAL 107) A20110010723 A20110012560 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal pursuant to section 58 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 against an order of the Maori Land Court made on 25 August 2011 at 270 Aotea MB 214-241 in respect of HOROWHENUA 11 (LAKE) TRUST BETWEEN CHARLES RUDD SENIOR AND

4. 2017 NZSSAA 003 (31 January 2017) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...was receiving medical or other treatment as at 22 January 2016. The Chief Executive is to then reconsider his decision in light of this information. Even if it is established that the 1 [2010] NZCA 110. 8 appellant was receiving medical treatment, and therefore there is some discretion to fix the rate of Emergency Benefit payable, the appellant should not assume that the discretion will be exercised in her favour. The Chie...

5. Complaints Assessment Committee 403 v Shalendra Goundar [2017] NZREADT 76 [pdf, 190 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.15 [16] 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: 12 At paragraph [94]. 13 Section 3(1) of the Act. 14 Section...

6. Cassidy v ACC [2013] NZACA 14 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...correctly fixes Mr Cassidy’s RE amount at the date of his accident at $200.00 per week and his ERC at $180.00 per week and that the OIC of 3 June 1992 is the first OIC that can apply to increase his RE amount. 7 Costs [28] Under s 110, where an appeal is allowed in whole or in part, the Authority may allow the appellant the costs of bringing the appeal or any part thereof. By virtue of issuing the amended decision, ACC has conceded that the decision appealed against wa...

7. Searancke - Lot 2 and 4 of proposed subdivision of GS5D/318 and Lot 1 of proposed subdivision of GS5D/318 (2008) 179 Gisborne MB 61 (179 GIS 61) [pdf, 2.2 MB]

   ...circumstances in tIlls case have not reached that threshold. The sale is considered desirable but the Council would prefer all trustees, including those recently appointed, to agree to the sale. 179 Gisborne MB 70 D,!cisioll [25J . As there is 110 issue for any of the patties concerning the Agreement for Exchange with Transit NZ, public safety requires it be finalised. The parties are to file the final agreement once it is finalised for conltrluation. [26J In relation to the A...

8. Carroll - Himatangi 7 Block (2017) 369 Aotea MB 107 (369 AOT 107) [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...5 358 Aotea MB 14-15 (358 AOT 14-15) 6 358 Aotea MB 86 (358 AOT 86) 7 362 Aotea MB 98-111 (362 AOT 98-111) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM292141#DLM292141 369 Aotea MB 110 [15] It is well settled that the Court’s powers of review are extensive. 8 That said, it is generally unnecessary for a review of day-to-day operational matters. The Court will usually focus on higher policy issues. 9 Even so, th

9. [2018] NZEmpC 48 Bayliss v Solar Bright Ltd [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...Christchurch 90. [109] Mr Bayliss agreed that he had made contact with the four customers referred to in Solar Bright’s lawyer’s letter. They are all customers of Solar Bright. The communications commenced from early September. [110] Mr Bayliss initiated communication with an individual at Queenstown airport by email on 1 September 2016 advising that he had moved on from Solar Bright and wanted the individual’s cell phone so that he could give him a buzz. Further...

10. CAC 414 v Goyal [2018] NZREADT 3 [pdf, 191 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.7 [16] 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 impose under s 93 of the Act (these include...