Search Results

1. CAC 10037 v Walker [2011] NZREADT 4 [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...the commencement of the 2008 Act on 17 November 2009 s 172 of the 2008 Act applies and we cannot make such an order, see CAC v Dodd (above) at para 65. [29] In accordance with s 113 of the Act the Tribunal advises the parties of the right to appeal this decision to the High Court pursuant to s 116 of the Act. DATED at WELLINGTON this 21 st day of April 2011 ______________________________ Judge Michael Hobbs Chairman ______________________________ J Robson Me...

2. Auckland Standards Committee v Eichelbaum [2014] NZLCDT 23 [pdf, 33 KB]

   ...Having referred the Tribunal to a number of the criminal cases underlying the law as to name suppression, Ms Davenport QC takes the Tribunal to three cases where name suppression has been refused by the Tribunal (and in the case of Hart1 upheld on appeal). In the other two cases namely Hirschfeld2 and Hill3 and also in a further case not referred to by counsel, Hall4 [9] The Hart matter was somewhat different but what was declined in that case was the submission that a practitioner...

3. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee v Deobhakta [2014] NZLCDT 50 [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...corruption in NZLS”. [6] Mr Clancy for the Standards Committee opposed the request for adjournment. He submitted that the practitioner had been aware of the Tribunal’s decision since December 2013 and thus had time to exercise his right to appeal the decision and had not done so. He said that there was no prejudice to the practitioner in declining the request, because the issue of possible strike-off had been extant since May 2014 at a time when Mr Mabey,QC was representing...

4. Auckland Standards Committee v Clews [2014] NZLCDT 49 [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...approval that Mr Clews has subsequently apologised in writing to this practitioner. [10] In terms of disciplinary history we note there was one finding of unsatisfactory conduct which related to the manner in which Mr Clews conducted the trial, the appeal from which led (indirectly) to these two charges. Thus, this is a somewhat unusual situation in that there is a nexus between these charges and the only other adverse finding against the practitioner. We consider that does reduce...

5. Auckland Standards Committee v Smith Charges [2015] NZLCDT 40 [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...an ex parte application, charged the beneficial interests of the husband in various entities, which were then set out in Schedule 2 of the order. [8] The wife applied for the order to be made final and the husband applied for a stay, having appealed the original award. Neither were successful when these applications were considered by Her Honour, Justice Ellis on 12 March 2013. In the course of that judgment Her Honour recorded the husband’s evidence that he held any shares...

6. FB v WBOPSC2 LCRO 184 / 2010 (26 August 2011) [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...needed in order to complete my review. Considerations 3 [10] In undertaking this review I am aware that the Practitioner was struck off the Roll of Solicitors and Barristers on [date] in relation to another matter. The Practitioner’s appeal of that decision was unsuccessful. The decision now under review preceded the above decision. However, as at the time of the review the Practitioner was no longer practising as a lawyer. [11] However, this is not a factor that sh...

7. GC v OSC LCRO 113 / 2011 (2 November 2011) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...concerning GE. The Committee found that “this refusal was in all the circumstances capable of being considered a device to enable (the Practitioner) to take instructions from [GE] in relation to his (locally known to be more complex and lucrative appeal) matter instead.” [13] The Standards Committee was of the view that Practitioner‟s conduct was capable of reaching the threshold of „misconduct‟ under Section 7 (1)(a)(i) of the Act, and for this reason decided that the...

8. White v Rodney District Council [pdf, 84 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: White & Anor v Rodney District Council & Anor File No: TRI 2007-100-000064/ DBH 01814 Court: WHT Adjudicator: K Kilgour Date of Decision: 4 March 2009 Background This determination is based on a claim filed by the claimants filed against the Rodney District Council (Council) and Mr and Mrs Kerkins (Kerkins) as vendors and project managers/developers/head-contractors of the subject dwelling. However due to the passing away of Mr Kerkins, Mrs Kerkins

9. BORA Sex Offenders Registry Bill [pdf, 24 KB]

   ...6. Sex offenders liable to registration are defined in the Bill as those who: (i) On the day the Bill comes into force, are serving a sentence in respect of an offence under sections 128 to 144C of the Crimes Act (including individuals who are appealing their convictions) or are on parole or have been found not guilty of a sexual offence by reason of insanity and are still being held under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992; and ii) On or after the date o...

10. BORA Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No3) Supplementary Order Paper [pdf, 101 KB]

    ...We understand that the rationale for including provisions in the SOP that override the Bill of Rights Act is to avoid the risk that certain regulations or orders in council will be struck down as being ultra vires as a consequence of the Court of Appeal decision in Drew v Attorney General [2002] 1 NZLR 58. 15. However, we note the scope of section 49 of the SOP (see paragraph 8 above), and the range of factors the Minister must have regard to before making recommendations. We consider th...