Search Results

1. Sharma v Manchanda [2018] NZIACDT 2 (2 February 2018) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...complaint was made, the Registrar required that Mr Manchanda provide a copy of his file, but he did not provide file notes that he later relied on. [3] The essential features of the grounds of complaint are, Mr Manchanda failed to take adequate care over the absent police certificate, did not give adequate advice and failed to follow up advice in writing, and he failed to provide the Registrar with a full copy of his file. [4] The essential facts are not contentious, though what w...

2. Johnson v Canterbury/Westland Standards Committee 3 - Outcome of appeal of decisions [2018] NZLCDT 5 and [2018] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 439 KB]

   JOHNSON v CANTERBURY/WESTLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 3 [2019] NZHC 619 [28 March 2019] IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE CIV 2018-404-000533 [2019] NZHC 619 BETWEEN RONALD BRUCE JOHNSON Appellant AND CANTERBURY/WESTLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 3 Respondent Hearing: 29 August 2018 Appearances: P J Napier & N Pye for Appellant S Waalkens & M Mor

3. LCRO 170/2019 ZY v LN QC (23 April 2021) [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...(a) the decision to file enforcement proceedings and the interlocutory application were tactical procedural steps, the filing of which did not reflect any competency failings on the part of Mr LN; and (b) it considered that Mr LN had made a careful assessment of the options available to Ms ZY; and 1 Ms ZY, submissions accompanying review application (8 November 2019) at p5. 5 (c) it was unable to identify evidence to suggest that Mr LN had acted incompetently; and (d)...

4. Naera v Fenwick - Whakapoungakau 24 block (2010) 15 Waiariki MB 279 (15 WAR 279) [pdf, 379 KB]

   ...owners. Such minimalist engagement is caused, in part, by the lack of appropriate systems within the current Māori land tenure system that should include a robust owner address identification and maintenance process. [57] In summary, having carefully reviewed the trust order, it is difficult to discern, in the absence of authority, how the position can be any different to that expressed by Judge Savage in 1999. My conclusion is that the Appellate Court authorities confirm that vot...

5. BORA Ngati Awa Claim Settlement Bill [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...public law action against the relevant Minister who issued a protocol alleging failure to comply with his or her obligations under the protocol. This clause affects the substantive law and does not in my view fall within the ambit of s 27(3) which protects procedural rights. Accordingly, clause 23(3) of the Bill is not inconsistent with s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights. Section 14 BORA issue 12. Clause 21 of the Bill raises the issue of compliance with s 14 of the Bill of Rights. Sectio...

6. BORA Ngāti Mākino Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...proceedings against the Crown and have those heard according to law in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals. However, cl 20(3) affects the substantive law and does not fall within the ambit of s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights, which protects procedural rights. [5] Whether s 19 at issue 9. Although the Bill confers assets and/or rights on claimants that are not conferred on other people it does not, in my view, create a prima facie limit on the right to freedom from discr...

7. Waitangi Tribunal - Part IV Te Urewera [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 (5) What alternatives were available to the Crown ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 (a) Alternative ways of protecting native birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 (b) Compensating for the loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

8. Waitangi Tribunal - Part 6 Te Urewera [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 (5) What alternatives were available to the Crown ? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 (a) Alternative ways of protecting native birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 (b) Compensating for the loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

9. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Parshotam [2016] NZLCDT 15 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...accused, another practitioner, Mr Horsley,1 [4] The Tribunal is concerned not to accord unsustainable weight to the aggravating feature. However, we would not wish to see the penalty process in disciplinary proceedings, with its focus on public protection rather than punishment, assuming the more mathematical and precise features of criminal sentencing. faced an additional charge of misconduct, which he admitted. That led to a three year suspension, as compared with the two year...

10. Chand and Kumari v Prakash [2012] NZIACDT 85 (3 December 2012) [pdf, 178 KB]

    ...decision the Tribunal is required to weight the public interest against Mr Prakash’s interests. When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty, short of exclusion from a profession, that a person will not reoffend. This Tribunal must carefully weigh the circumstances. It is appropriate to place an element of considered trust in a practitioner who is has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [59] It is significant that this case involves dishonesty. Tha...