Search Results

1. AMLCFT Statutory Review Summary Document [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...2009 (the Act) helps to keep New Zealand safe from money laundering and terrorism financing. By making it harder for criminals to launder money or finance terrorism, we also make profit-motivated crime (like selling drugs or defrauding people) less appealing. A review of the Act began on 1 July 2021. This document provides a summary of the key issues that have been identified so far as part of this review. It is based on, and designed to be read alongside, the Consultation Document, whic...

2. National Standards Committee 2 v Mr Y [2022] NZLCDT 8 (24 February 2022) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...produced at any hearing: 13 (c) an order prohibiting the publication of the name or any particulars of the affairs of the person charged or any other person. (2) Unless it is reversed or modified in respect of its currency by the High Court on appeal under section 253, an order made under subsection (1) continues in force until such time as may be specified in the order, or, if no time is specified, until the Disciplinary Tribunal, in its discretion, revokes it on the application...

3. LCRO 176/2022 SP v AQ (15 August 2023) [pdf, 313 KB]

   ...Ms AQ responded briefly to Ms SP’s reasons in support of her application. Nature and scope of review [51] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:21 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It involv...

4. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 v Deobhakta [2013] NZLCDT 55 (18 December 2013) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...subsequent investigation and hearing will identify, and then a charge will be framed and laid. As a consequence the facts, matters and particulars of charge may well extend further than what was said in the complaint itself. [17] The Court of Appeal commented on this issue in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society & Ors10 – “… a decision under s 152(2)(a) does not determine the outcome of the complaint. It only determines which body should be seized of it. The decision...

5. Emet v New Zealand Transport Agency 2023 NZHRRT 41 [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...from discrimination affirmed by NZBORA, s 19; and [21.2] Is not a justified limit under NZBORA, s 5. [22] The test for what amounts to a limit on the right to be free from discrimination affirmed by NZBORA, s 19 is that set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Health v Atkinson.8 That test requires Mr Emet to prove the following in this case: [22.1] Firstly, that NZTA’s actions amount to differential treatment between him and those in an analogous or comparable situation on...

6. [2024] NZEmpC 181 Ford v Henry Brown and Co Ltd [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...“require” a reduction in the remedies that would otherwise have been awarded. [54] The primary considerations when determining whether a particular action should result in a reduction for contribution are causation and proportionality. The Court of Appeal has explained s 124 as operating like a contributory negligence provision and that “… if the employee, by his or her own behaviour, is partly the cause of the employer’s hasty or ill-judged action (here, in dismissing th...

7. OIA-119507.pdf [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...fines and reparation are also imposed outside of these courts. For completeness, we included an additional category named “other”, to capture those courts. “Other” may include fines imposed in a Youth court, Employment court, the Court of Appeal, or the Central Registry (CR). s9(2)(a) s9(2)(a) While the CR does not impose fines in the court, they may be listed as an “imposition court” due to the Police relodging the fine with the court following a dispute. Questi...

8. [2025] NZREADT 03 - XS v REAA (10 February 2025) [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...This decision is not a determination of professional wrongdoing concerning the leak, which will be for the Committee to decide. [67] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116, setting out the right of appeal to the High Court. 28 KN v Registrar of the Real Estate Agents Authority [2024] NZREADT 3 at [23]–[25]. 15 PUBLICATION [68] Having regard to the interests of the public in knowing of any professional wrongdoing of licen...

9. Sycamore v McLaughlin - Rangatira E (2025) 335 Waiariki MB 40 (335 WAR 40) [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...conduct or circumstances that mean a person may no longer be suitable to hold office as a trustee. The examples are a guide and do not form an exhaustive list. 16 Henderson v Brooking – Wharekahika A47 [2023] Māori Appellate Court MB 17 (2023 APPEAL 17) at [28]. 335 Waiariki MB 52 (d) If the Court is satisfied that one of the grounds in s 240(1)(b) has been met, the Court must then consider whether removal is desirable for the proper execution of the trust. This invo...

10. [2025] NZLVT 009 - Jansseune v Kaipara District Council (14 March 2025) [pdf, 9.3 MB]

    ...in the land value of the property from $400,000 as at 1 September 2020 to $560,000 as at 1 September 2023. After Mr Jansseune filed an objection, the figure was reviewed to a total of $510,000. This is the figure which is the subject of this appeal. Nevertheless, Mr Jansseune extensively criticises the change of the value downwards, especially for its 3 lack of any transparency. The Council, for its part, identified the assertion by Mr Jansseune of an unacceptable increase...