Search Results

1. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Morahan [2017] NZLCDT 34 [pdf, 178 KB]

   NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZLCDT 34 LCDT 022/16 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 Applicant AND PETER JAMES MORAHAN Respondent CHAIR Judge BJ Kendall (retired) MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Mr J Bishop Mr W Chapman Mr S Maling Mr K Raureti On the papers DATE OF DECISION 22 November 2017 COUNSEL Mr D La Hood and Mr I S Auld for the Appl

2. [2018] NZEnvC 073 Skyline Enterprises Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...helpful guide: (a) length of delay; (b) reasons for delay; (c) scheme of the Act relating to public participation ; (d) what has happened in the proceeding in the meantime; (e) what effect introducing new parties might have on progressing the appeal to resolution . [14] The s274 notice was filed four days late which is not excessively late in the absence of any party raising any issues of prejudice. Mr Walker does not give any compelling reasons for his delay. While there may...

3. Clarkson - Mangaraire B No 2 (2016) 55 Takitimu MB 161 (55 TKT 161) [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...section 165 of this Act, section 4A of the Maori Vested Lands Administration Act 1954, and section 10 of the Maori Reserved Land Act 1955. [15] A relevant authority is the Māori Appellate Court decision Phillips v Ashby – Oromahoe 17B2. 1 That appeal concerned a gifting of shares between siblings. It was argued by the appellant that tikanga Māori required the approval of the relevant hapū to any gifting of shares. [16] On that point the Appellate Court stated: [16] On...

4. Baker - Waipuka 2S2 Block (2016) 56 Takitimu MB 49 (56 TKT 49) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...provide the legislative mandate to the trustees to “transfer” estate lands for the purposes specified. What is proposed here, an occupation 1 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 143 (2011 Appeal 143) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0004/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM291869#DLM291869 56 Tākitimu MB 53 order, is a much lesser right than transfer of the freehold. Then there is the reality that there are no restricti...

5. Gill v Singh [2017] NZIACDT 5 (6 April 2017) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...incorrect advice as a result is not contested. This is not a case where a party has simply failed to call evidence that was available, and only chose to do so after an adverse result. The circumstances come within the general principles where an appeal or application for rehearing is allowed due to a fundamental error on the part of counsel. The misunderstanding regarding the right to silence, and the drawing of adverse inferences is quite different from the inevitable decisions that...

6. BORA Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act. Melanie Webb Acting Chief Legal Counsel Office of Legal Counsel 3 See Drew v Attorney-General [2002] 1 NZLR 58, in which the Court of Appeal held that regulations that are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act would be ultra vires and invalid unless the empowering statute authorises the making of regulations that are inconsistent with that Act. In addition to the general...

7. BORA Energy Safety Review Bill [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 as the primary legislation covering electricity and gas safety in places of work, and that responsibility for public and product safety remain with the Energy Sector Acts; • Aligns the disciplinary and appeal provisions in the Electricity Act, the Gas Act and the Plumbers, Gasfitters, and Drainlayers Act to ensure consistency across the sector; • Amends the amount, range and, scope of penalties that may be imposed for disciplinary and other...

8. BORA Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosions and Profit Shifting) Bill [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...liable if it does not. 18. The section heading at s 143 refers to absolute liability, but because subsection (2) provides what is essentially a defence, we therefore consider this to be a strict liability offence. In doing so, we note the Court of Appeal has confirmed that it is “a universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted”.4 19. Strict liability offences...

9. National Standards Committee 1 v Simpson [2020] NZLCDT 36 (10 November 2020) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...above by Winkelmann J. The offending demonstrates that the Practitioner is unfit to continue practice as a lawyer. [9] The need to maintain the reputation of the profession is also a relevant factor. Sir Thomas Bingham MR for the English Court of Appeal said in Bolton v Law Society in respect of the discipline of solicitors:10 8 Sentencing notes at [39]. 9 Hart v Auckland Standards Committee 1 of the New Zealand Law Soc...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 226 Sheath v The Selwyn Foundation [pdf, 86 KB]

    ...6 NZEMPU v Carter Holt Harvey, above n 3 at [38]. and inexpensive first instance hearings of disputes and the fact that an order for removal by its very nature deprives the parties of a step in the appeal process. Each case will be decided on its own circumstances. The present case is, however, an instance where an order for removal should be made. The applicant, Ms Sheath, is accordingly granted special leave of the Court for an orde