Search Results

1. BORA Countering Terrorist Fighters Legislation Bill [pdf, 362 KB]

   ...conclude that these amendments place justified limitations on the rights to freedom of movement, security against unreasonable search and seizure, and justice, which are affirmed by the Bill of Rights Act. The limitations have the important objective of protecting national security, public order, safety and the rights of others. We consider them to be rationally connected with this objective, proportional, and minimally impairing of rights. The Bill 5.The Bill is a response to the con...

2. LCRO 156/2016 KZ v XL on behalf of [Company A] (18 January 2019) [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...another lawyer, Mr BN, supporting her approach. He described his experience in dealing with leaky building claims, including acting for local authorities such as the Council. [43] Mr BN said that “the proposal to transfer the claim requires careful consideration to ensure that it doesn’t weaken the claimant’s case”. He considered that where limitation issues might arise it is important to obtain “agreement with the defendant’s solicitors prior to the transfer that any...

3. BORA - Adoption Amendment Bill [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...affected by the Bill are adopted children and their parents, where the child has been adopted outside New Zealand (affected group). It may be that children who are foreign nationals and reside overseas do not fall within the scope of the NZBORA’s protections. However, this issue need not be resolved here because, even if this group is protected by the NZBORA, the ultimate conclusion (below) is that any rights-interference is justified. This question does not arise in relation to parent...

4. CS v HT and LM LCRO 25/2013, 50/2013 and 51/2013 (24 June 2014) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...of investigations by the Complaints Service the Standards Committee resolved to commence an own motion investigation in that it appeared ABC firm had not provided the client information as required by Rules 3.4 and 3.5 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules12 until 2 September 2010. [26] Following receipt of the judgment Mr CS lodged his second complaint. This focused on the conduct of the hearing by Mr HT and Mrs LM and alleged:13 1. HT [sic] has been professionally negligent in th...

5. PC v OR [2021] NZDT 1341 (8 April 2021) [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...$650.00. 3. Although OR was named personally as a respondent, I am satisfied that the contract was with T Limited and the claim against OR cannot succeed. 4. The issues I must consider are: a. Were the services carried out with reasonable care and skill as required by s 28 CGA? b. If not, what remedy is appropriate? Were the services carried out with reasonable care and skill as required by s 28 CGA? 5. Where services are supplied to a consumer, s 28 of the Consumer Guaran...

6. GA & BD v X SC LCRO 186/2013 (5 May 2014) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...What I do question is whether this is the right approach to breaches of the Nominee Company Rules, whether major or minor, and whether causative of loss or otherwise. If, as Mr T [Counsel for the lawyer] contends, there is little or no duty of care by a lawyer to contributors to a firm’s nominee company, then there is no room to excuse errors or lapses in compliance with the Rules however minor. [64] I consider that Standards Committees should insist on strict compliance with...

7. LCRO 7/2018 AB v CD (26 November 2019) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...made by Mr CD, entered an unsatisfactory conduct finding in respect to complaint that Mr AB had failed to provide Mr CD with an itemised account or breakdown of his fees. Background [2] Mr CD instructed Mr AB to defend an application for a final protection order. [3] The application had been made by a former girlfriend of Mr CD’s. [4] The application did not proceed to hearing. [5] Mr AB negotiated a settlement which provided that the temporary protection order that was then i...

8. LCRO 22/2019 HT v MK (29 May 2020) [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...(2) Share sale agreement – preparation – issue (b) (a) Negligence claim (i) Parties’ positions [102] Mr HT says Mr MK was negligent in drafting the share sale agreement which contained “a raft of errors”, in particular (a) no “protective measure[s]” to “ensure” settlement, and (b) the number of sale shares, and option shares.42 He claims he suffered loss as a consequence. 41 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Com...

9. Tapiki and Eru v New Zealand Parole Board [2019] NZHRRT 5 [pdf, 403 KB]

   ...with his mother the Special Conditions stipulated that Jesse was to live at her home and not move without the prior written approval of a probation officer. [12] Ms Tapiki explained to the Tribunal that in the lead up to the progress hearing much careful thought and preparation by her and Ms Eru had occurred because given Jesse’s three prior releases and two recalls, they wanted to ensure that this time, with strong family support, he would have a real chance for reintegration into the...

10. [2021] NZEnvC 096 Northland District Health Board v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 9.7 MB]

    ...acknowledge that the plan has been through an extensive and iterative process and that we are focussed only on the provisions that are before us. Nevertheless, we repeat our earlier comments and other decisions about Te Mana o te Wai and the need to protect not only our waters but our biodiverse ecotones from further loss. [35] Beyond this, the Health Board is particularly concerned at the potential for agrichemicals to affect humans. They note that the Northland population is among...