Search Results

1. LCRO 24/2017 HC v DASH (24 January 2020) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...2016. [17] In providing a summary of Das’s position, his counsel submitted that: (a) Mr HC had acted for multiple parties on the same (or interrelated) transactions, when the parties had divergent interests and there was clearly more than a negligible risk of him being unable to discharge his obligations to all parties; and (b) Mr HC had failed to obtain informed consent and failed to advise the parties to obtain independent legal advice; and 6 (c) it would have been appar...

2. FZ v UL LCRO 257 / 2010 (17 October 2011) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...the Law Practitioners Act 1982 provide that disciplinary sanctions may be imposed where a lawyer is found guilty of misconduct in his or her professional capacity, or conduct unbecoming of a barrister or solicitor. Further provisions relating to negligence and criminal convictions are not relevant here. Further guidance can be obtained from the Rules of Professional Conduct for barristers and solicitors which were the applicable Rules at the time. [22] The threshold for disciplina...

3. [2024] NZEmpC 247 Courage & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors and EMPC 85/2022 Pilgrim & Ors v Attorney-General & Ors [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...the Authority and in the High Court. There was no dispute about the claims she brought in the Authority; they were within the Authority’s jurisdiction. Her claim in the High Court related to the same facts but was framed as a tort action in negligence. A majority of the Supreme Court was satisfied that her claim in the High Court was an employment relationship problem;22 the High Court could not hear it.23 It was not within the Authority’s jurisdiction, however, because it w...

4. Auckland District Law Society v Mathias [2010] NZLCDT 10 [pdf, 42 KB]

   ...for inspection when required to do so under section 147(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. 6. The complaints cover a broad spectrum of misconduct ranging from: not responding adequately or at all to client request or instructions – to negligence in his advice – to dishonesty in his dealings with other practitioners and clients. As a result of his conduct, the practice of Mr Mathias and his dealings with clients and other practitioners was significantly compromised for an...

5. E67 Vaughan Smith - Planning - EIC - VHHL [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...means when all ground improvements are complete; g) “consent holder” means Panuku Development Auckland; h) “Council” means the Auckland Council; i) “Damage” means - including Aesthetic, Serviceability, Stability, but does not include Negligible Damage as described in the table below: Building Damage Classification Category of Damage Normal Degree of Severity Description of Typical Damage (Building Damage Classification after Burland (1995), and Mair et al...

6. Cycle-5-key-findings-report-v3.0-FIN.pdf [pdf, 2.3 MB]

   ...offences per 100 households (+/- 95% confidence interval) Cycle 1 (2018) Cycle 4 (2021) Cycle 5 (2022) Burglary 17.5 (+/- 1.8) 16.0 (+/-1.5) 14.9 (+/- 1.7) Property damage (household) 2.6 (+/-0.6) 2.2 (+/-0.6) 3.3 (+/-1.1) Damage to vehicle 2.3 (+/- 0.5) 2.4 (+/-0.4) 3.0 (+/-0.6) Trespass 2.3 (+/-0.5) 3.5 (+/-1.2) 3.0 (+/-0.8) Household theft (except vehicle) 3.0 (+/-0.6) 2.7 (+/-0.6) 2.5 (+/-0.6) Theft (from vehicle) 2.0 (+/-0.4) 1.7 (+/-0.4) 1.7 (+/-0.4) Inter...

7. [2022] NZEnvC 086 Smith & Silk v Christchurch City Council [pdf, 6 MB]

   ...environmental effect of the proposal and is adopted for this application; the potential adverse effects on the productive potential of rural land are less than minor. Traffic effects 31. Kainga Road is a collector road and caries less than 3000 vehicles per day. The addition of a residential dwelling and its associated traffic movements (8-10 vehicle movements per day) is not anticipated to impact on the safety and efficiency of Kainga Road. …I consider the proposal will have l...

8. Johnson v Canterbury/Westland Standards Committee 3 - Outcome of appeal of decisions [2018] NZLCDT 5 and [2018] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 439 KB]

   ...Charge 1 43 No duty to give advice as to trustees’ duties 46 Preferring expert evidence of Mr Eades to that of Mr Haynes 50 Failure to follow Bartle 51 Rule 3 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules 60 Finding that Mr Johnson was guilty of high end negligence 63 Appeal on Charges 2 and 3 72 Scope of appeal on Charges 2 and 3 78 What constitutes misconduct? 79 Appeal against penalty 88 Result 101 Introduction [1] Ronald Bruce Johnson has appealed two deci...

9. 8.-Dr-Jack-McConchie-Hydrology.pdf [pdf, 30 MB]

   Barristers and Solicitors Wellington Solicitors Acting: David Randal / Thaddeus Ryan / Frances Wedde Email: david.randal@buddlefindlay.com Tel 64-4-499 4242 Fax 64-4-499 4141 PO Box 2694 DX SP20201 Wellington 6140 IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY I MUA I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE ENV-2020-WLG-00014 UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 IN THE MATTER OF a notice of motion under section 87G of the Act see

10. [2020] NZEnvC 025 Willis Bond Capital Partners No. 3 Limited [pdf, 914 KB]

    ...close to the railway station, connects to major pedestrian thoroughfares and has 'end of journey' cycle parking facilities for cyclists. The Court accepts the witnesses' opinions that potential effects from additional traffic will be negligible and acceptable. [49] Access to the building for service vehicles will be via L;ady Elizabeth Lane. Mr E Thornton noted the building set back would only be 30,0 mm from the lane so that a large vehicle could accidentally strike...