Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Anderson [2022] NZLCDT 25 (22 July 2022) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...before signing the document. The document was witnessed by a legal executive in the employ of Ms Anderson. Ms V did not give evidence whether she did in fact take independent advice at any time. Indeed, she was not called to support the charge as pleaded, despite the allegation that she had been professionally failed by Ms Anderson. [34] It was a further two and a half years before Ms Anderson was able to sell the property because it took that long for Ms V to deal with other asse...

2. AODT-Court-Operational-Policy-update-2023-v2.pdf [pdf, 367 KB]

   ...the actual cost of services, whichever is lower. This will ensure any repayment amounts do not exceed the average cost of a standard district court PAL1 criminal matter. If the participant exits the AODT programme early and withdraws their guilty plea, then costs incurred after exiting the AODT court will not be considered within the partial write off review and additional costs will be incurred. Rostering policy Only duty lawyers with a Criminal PAL1 approval who have applied to jo...

3. LA - Provider manual - Part 1 [pdf, 523 KB]

   ...this will be considered as a new application for approval. Reference: Regulation 7 Conditions on approval As well as the criteria for approval as a lead or other provider, the Secretary may impose conditions on an approval to provide services. Please refer to conditions on approval, for further information on the types of conditions the Secretary can approve. All supervised provider approvals will be subject to a condition imposed by the Secretary. Reference: Section 77(2) and (3)(b...

4. Mr-Rasheeds-Submissions-Appendix-I-Appendix-II.pdf [pdf, 334 KB]

   APPENDIX I: TABLE OF LIVE ISSUES N o. Issue Proposed category Why further matters beyond the RC process and report must be considered to complete the inquiry: 1 APPENDIX I: TABLE OF LIVE ISSUES 2 How was the terrorist radicalised and how can this be prevented in the future? Outside the scope of the Inquiry (considered by the RCOI). The RC failed to address this point as it did not have clear directive mandate and appropriate resources to examine the individual�

5. Regulatory Impact Statement Addressing child pornography and related offending [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...requires a number of factors to be taken into account by the sentencing judge. The maximum penalty for the offence is only one of these factors. Sufficiency of evidence, sentence negotiation, quality of sentencing submissions and early guilty pleas all affect the sentencing outcome because child pornography publications form a subset of other publications that are considered objectionable, it is not always possible to obtain specific statistics on child pornography prosecutions....

6. [2014] NZEmpC 97 S v L Ltd [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...charges are laid against you and the nature of these charges.  Court dates and times including those that you will need to make an appearance.  Any changes in your approach to the charge (or any additional charges) including any change of plea.  The date(s) of any trial should the charge proceed to a full hearing and the final outcome when it is known to you. [13] L Limited then proposed a return to work two days later if the foregoing conditions were acceptable to S,...

7. Reid v ACC [2015] NZACA 11 [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...serious injury and disability, has exhibited a fierce determination to get on with life and be as independent as he could possibly achieve. It is apparent that he did so with inadequate assistance from the Corporation for many years. Dr Haywood’s plea to the Corporation was for greater assistance with home help and aids of various types, but not for attendant care as such. Conclusion [65] I conclude that the Corporation’s decision declining attendant care was correct. Most of th...

8. CK v Auckland Standards Committee LCRO 63 / 2011 (11 October 2013) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...that could be expected of a reasonably competent lawyer; the other was a breach of duty to the Court. [35] The background circumstances were that the Practitioner’s client, EA, sought an appeal on the ground that he had entered a ‘guilty’ plea on the basis of a sentencing indication for all offences of [number] years, and that the Court had imposed a [number] year sentence, plus [number] for an additional offence. [36] Notwithstanding the Court of Appeal’s criticism, the...

9. [2018] NZEmpC 100 Elisara v Allianz NZ Ltd [pdf, 303 KB]

   ...4 Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance of New Zealand v Stuart [1985] 1 NZLR 596 at 607 (CA). 5 Regulation 45. 6 Regulation 46. [17] One of the cornerstones of the defendant’s argument as to disclosure relates to relevance. The pleadings provide the framework for assessing relevance; and relevance itself is defined in speculative (“may support”) rather than definitive (“must support”) terms. There are limits, and the concept of relevance cannot be extended b...

10. BORA Court Matters Bill [pdf, 194 KB]

    ...Turning to the trial of different charges together, the Bill contains a new provision that changes the point in time after which the prosecution must seek leave to join charges together (or charges against one or more defendants), from the point of plea to the date of the case review hearing (cl 32). This makes it easier for the prosecution to join charges together at a later point in time. The Court retains the ability to sever charges if it is in the interests of justice to do so. Give...