Search Results

1. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v Hancock [2011] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...for a number of years. Sadly, for Mr Hancock, his entry into sole practice was not a happy or easy one. He had some difficulties with the dissolution of his previous partnership including taking over a number of dormant balances and difficult files from a practitioner who had begun to succumb to dementia. Around the same time Mr Hancock’s own marriage broke up and this caused him further financial and other stress. 1 Complaints Comm...

2. Legal aid High Cost Case Management consultation - summary of submissions [pdf, 488 KB]

   ...always over-estimate to avoid the Ministry refusing to pay for work that was legitimately and necessarily done. The inability to be specific for the case plan is true for substantive preparation. In addition, until substantial work has been done on a file, it is impossible to estimate the amount of likely work, including the requirements for experts, defence witnesses and junior counsel. Response The comments received have been used to inform the design of the case plan document....

3. Update to Minister on applying the investment approach to Justice [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   Applying the Investment Approach to Justice Date 31 October 2014 File reference Action Sought Timeframe/Deadline Direct the Ministry of Justice to provide you with an interim paper by 20 December 2014 on short-term opportunities to advance an Investment Approach to Justice. - Direct the Justice Leadership Board to provide Justice sector Ministers with a paper by the end of March 2015 that explores long-term options to advance an Investment Approach to J

4. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee v Fletcher [2013] NZLCDT 16 [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...him and whether the ultimate sanction of striking off the roll of Barristers and Solicitors needs to be imposed. [14] For his part Mr Fletcher submitted that there had been “a temporary lack of focus on his part”. In a lengthy affidavit filed only a day prior to the hearing Mr Fletcher had this to say:3 “... Over a period of no more than a few weeks from December 2002 to February 2003, I lost my objectivity in the way I handled Mr Hohepa and his express instructions.” [...

5. ENVC Matiatia party corresp DMI amended applic out scope 20150130 [pdf, 680 KB]

   ...as a result of the proposed deletion and/or relocation of the parking provision; (c) The amended application is 'out of scope' and beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to consider further; (d) As appear in the memorandum of counsel filed in support. 3. The following orders are sought: (a) The amendments made (or proposed) by WML to its application render the application (as amended) outside the scope of the original application. (b) WML shall within 7 days of this or...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 71 Knapp v Locktite Aluminium Specialities Ltd [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...in the particular circumstances. Conclusion [37] The challenge is dismissed. Costs are reserved. The parties are encouraged to agree costs. If that is not possible, memoranda and supporting material can be exchanged, with the defendant filing and serving within 25 working days of the date of this judgment, the plaintiff within a further 15 working days and anything strictly in reply within a further 5 working days. Christina Inglis Judge Judgment signed at 2pm...

7. Abbot v Macclesfield LCRO 40 / 2009 (29 May 2009) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...with. [15] Mr Macclesfield argued in his submission to this office that he was authorised to deduct the fees in question by virtue of the consent of Mr Abbot. In support of his argument he referred to a meeting of 17 October 2007 and produced file notes of that meeting. On that note the following was recorded: “balance of settlement funds Nat Bank Family Trust Acc”. Mr Macclesfield concedes that he cannot recall the detail of the meeting but states that this note indi...

8. EA v WSC2 LCRO 11 / 2011 (24 June 2011) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...for the Standards Committee in that decision when coming to its decision to continue with this investigation. [17] On 8 June 2011, I requested the Standards Committee to provide me with a copy of the Opinion referred to in the Standards Committee file and by which it was no doubt guided in coming to its decision. [18] On 20 June 2011 the Committee advised that it objected to the production of the Opinion, and the Legal Standards Officer advised in a subsequent telephone conversati...

9. Denbighshire v Galashiels LCRO 218 / 2009 (26 February 2010) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...this role shortly it was inappropriate for me to consider the matter. He followed this up with a further letter of 22 February 2010 in which he suggested that the conclusion of my role may have been linked to the proceedings for judicial review filed in the High Court. The date for my conclusion of this role was agreed prior to the service of any proceedings and there is no causal connection between the two matters. No further reasons were given in support of this argument and I can...

10. Campbeltown v Dunoon LCRO 129 / 2009 (11 November 2009) [pdf, 85 KB]

    ...arrangement. [27] Mr Campbeltown was not explicitly informed that XX was acting for both licensor and licensee in respect of the licence to occupy part of the transaction, nor of the connection of Mr A to the firm. Given that all of the dealings on this file appear to have been conducted by email and his assertion that he was unaware of the connection is at the least a tenable one. [28] Rule 1.04 of the then applicable Rules of Professional Conduct for Barristers and Solicitors...