Search Results

1. LCRO 14/2020 CL v BB (18 December 2020) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...services and terminated instructions on 16 November 2018. Mr BB rendered his account in the sum of $3,475 plus GST and disbursements. Ms CL’s complaints [8] Ms CLs letter of complaint summarised the issues that concerned her: “Lack of duty of care – excessive account – $4,171.25, being charged $70 emails to book an appointment and then receive “ok” back.”1 She has analysed the firm’s time records and refers to charges of $70 for minor administrative matters. She...

2. LCRO 14/2020 CL v BB (18 December 2020) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...services and terminated instructions on 16 November 2018. Mr BB rendered his account in the sum of $3,475 plus GST and disbursements. Ms CL’s complaints [8] Ms CLs letter of complaint summarised the issues that concerned her: “Lack of duty of care – excessive account – $4,171.25, being charged $70 emails to book an appointment and then receive “ok” back.”1 She has analysed the firm’s time records and refers to charges of $70 for minor administrative matters. She...

3. Technical report of Parenting Hearings programme pilot [pdf, 1 MB]

   The Parenting Hearings Programme Pilot: Evaluation Technical Report The Parenting Hearings Programme Pilot: Evaluation Technical Report Trish Knaggs and Anne Harland Research, Evaluation and Modelling Unit September 2009 2 The Parenting Hearings Programme Pilot: Evaluation Report - Technical Report Published September 2009 Ministry of

4. [2006] NZEmpC AC 54/06 Yuan Cheng International Investment Group Ltd v Buer [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...addressed the decision of Pearce v Attorney-General in respect of the Department of Labour [2005] 1 ERNZ 731. That was a case where the full Court of the Employment Court considered the effect of an amendment to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 on the interpretation of the original section. The Court accepted there were three possibilities that can be gained from the authorities: • The original legislation was ambiguous and therefore the amending legislatio...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...defined in s 241(c)?3 5. If not, did unsatisfactory conduct occur? Background [5] Ms Fendall is a practitioner of many years’ experience who has primarily specialised in representing young people in the Youth Court. [6] Having taken out income protection insurance in 2002, she made her first claim under the policy in September 2009. Her claim was accepted because she was suffering from depression. [7] This was the first claim period of two periods which are under consideratio...

6. Donkin v CAC 10057 & Morton-Jones [2012] NZREADT 44 [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...to the Tribunal giving its decision in LB and therefore aware that industry standards had not at this time required any steps to be taken. We do not accept this. It is plain that from the commencement of the Act agents had an obligation to take care when making representations. How they take care depends upon the representation that is made. This is a reflection of Rule 6.4, 6.5 of the Real Estate Agents Client Care Rules. We do not think that the obligation is any more than this. Ac...

7. AL v ZK LCRO 182/2012 (19 March 2014) [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...the conduct of the lawyer, it is unlikely that it will be appropriate for a Standards Committee to take no action on the complaint. In this regard I refer to the case of BI v CW 3 where I noted: “...Standards Committees and this Office must be careful not to allow lawyers whose bills are complained about, to “buy” their way out of a finding of unsatisfactory conduct...” [15] While it is impossible to draw a definitive line, there is a distinction to be made between complain...

8. [2021] NZEmpC 133 Ngawaka v Global Security Solutions Ltd [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if the plaintiff’s claim fails.7 The power is discretionary and broad. In exercising the discretion regard must be had to the overall justice of the case, and the interests of both parties need to be carefully weighed up. The required balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal at AS McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd as follows:8 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to...

9. 2021-07-07 ORC - Closing Submissions [pdf, 422 KB]

   ...Court’s decision in EDS v King Salmon remains the leading authority for interpreting superior planning documents:7 [129] When dealing with a plan change application, the decision-maker must first identify those policies that are relevant, paying careful attention to the way in which they are expressed. Those expressed in more directive terms will carry greater weight than those expressed in less directive terms. Moreover, it may be that a policy is stated in such directive terms...

10. Appeal Against Penalty Olde-Olthof & Anor v REAA CAC 20005 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 37 [pdf, 70 KB]

    ...that the customer can seek expert advice if the customer so chooses.” General Principles [13] We agree with counsel for the Authority that decisions of industry disciplinary tribunals should emphasise the maintenance of high standards and the protection of the public (through both specific and general deterrence). While this may mean that orders made in disciplinary proceedings have a punitive effect, this is not their purpose – Z v CAC [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97]. As McGrath J said...