Search Results

1. CAC 20004 v Campbell [2014] NZREADT 28 [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...clarify the merits of this complaint. [62] We confirm the finding we delivered after the hearing at Thames on 3 April 2014 that this charge is dismissed. [63] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr J Gaukrodger Member __________________________...

2. CA v XU LCRO 196 / 2010 (18 May 2011) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...and her son. He then goes on to say: This was evidenced by a letter of instruction that was prepared by the lawyers and signed by Mouat. Moreover, Mouat was advised on three further occasions that independent advice was recommended. The Court of Appeal found that this consent was not adequate to relieve the lawyers of their duty of loyalty. 1 The basis for the decision was that the conflict was so great it was impossible to act adequately for both clients. This view had been sugg...

3. 2009-10 to 2011-12 Ministry of Justice statement of intent [pdf, 528 KB]

   ...Treaty Negotiations. OPERATIONAL SERVICES The Ministry delivers the following operational services for all New Zealanders on behalf of the Government: 8 administration, case management and support services to the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court and District Courts, including the Family Court and Youth Court resolution of court-imposed monetary penalties (including reparations) and infringement fines issued by prosecuting authorities, enforcement and completion of c...

4. AM v AN LCRO 69/2013 (19 December 2014) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Issue [29] The question on review is whether there is any good rea...

5. XB & XC v A North Island Standards Committee LCRO 207-208 / 2012 (10 June 2013) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...penalties to each individual breach as the facts out of which the adverse findings have been made, apply equally to the breaches of each provision. Censure [52] The Standards Committee censured both lawyers. [53] In NZLS v B the Court of Appeal noted: 19 A censure or reprimand, however expressed, is likely to be of particular significance in this context because it will be taken into account in the event of a further complaint against the Practitioner in respect of his or her...

6. Ellis — Matapihi No 1 B No 2C No 2D (2010) 2010 Chief Judge’s MB 25 (2010 CJ 25) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...omission.” [12] The scope of the Chief Judge’s jurisdiction under section 45 is exceptional, and must be exercised with care. First, the Chief Judge must be satisfied that an error has been made. In R v White (David) [1988] 1 NZLR 264 the Court of Appeal considered the meaning of “is satisfied” in the context of the Criminal Justice Act 1985. In that case, the Court held that the phrase “is satisfied” means simply “makes up its mind” and is indicative of a state wher...

7. Rangihuna v The Trustees of the Te Rimu Trust - Te Rimu Trust (2010) 10 Tairawhiti MB 137 (10 TRW 137) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...10 See In Re Whakapaupakihi 139 Gis 260 where the one man and one vote rule was followed 11 (1995) 18 Waikato Maniapoto Appellate MB 262 (18 APWM 262) 12 (2010) 2010 Maori Appellate Court MB 55 (2010 APPEAL 55) 10 Tairawhiti MB 145 Middle 4A2A Trust (2010) case is instructive and adopted for this case. It is reproduced below: ... At common law a vote on a show of hands means that each person present and entitled to vote,

8. Godinich v Guan Thye Heng Co Ltd [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...essentially supervisory and I think that the responsibility should be treated as being significantly less than that of the principal author of the damage. 6.5 In the case of Mount Albert Borough Council v Johnson [1979] 2 NZLR 234 the Court of Appeal considered a similar situation, where the owner of a defective building succeeded against the builder and the local authority. The Court apportioned responsibility between these two defendants as 80% to the Builder and 20% to the...

9. Pope v Human Rights Commission (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...may stay all or part of the proceeding on such conditions as are considered just. (4) This rule does not affect the court’s inherent jurisdiction. [33] In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd at [89] the Court of Appeal conveniently explained these different grounds: [89] The grounds of strike out listed in r 15.1(1)(b)–(d) concern the misuse of the court’s processes. Rule 15.1(1)(b), which deals with pleadings that are likely to cause prejudice or...

10. HR v OW and CT LCRO 79/2014 (18 May 2015) [pdf, 95 KB]

    ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing [35] Both parties attended a review hearing in [City] on 2...