Search Results

1. Juneja v Kumar [2016] NZIACDT 13 (18 March 2016) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...of his professional offending. [28] Mr Moses correctly submitted that the Tribunal must not speculate and go beyond the evidence before it. The parties may be aware of matters they do not, and should not, disclose to the Tribunal. The Registrar protects the public interest in that regard. [29] Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts Mr Kumar’s evidence that in the circumstances in which he provided his professional services he did so with competence and care, except for a minor error of ju...

2. [2020] NZREADT 35 - SureCapital (13 August 2020) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...the requirement for any penalty to have a general and individual deterrent effect is especially important in this case. She submitted that even if the Tribunal were to consider that SureCapital has learned from this experience, and will be more careful in the future, any penalty must mark the conduct in a way that sends a message to the real estate industry. [20] Ms Lim submitted that the fine should be set at a level that takes into account that the maximum available fine for corp...

3. Auckland Standards Committees 2 and 3 v Mason [2019] NZLCDT 5 [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...practising certificate, it having been declined on his last application, by the New Zealand Law Society. He has not chosen to contest that and indicates he will not seek to practise law again. This has implications in relation to the need for public protection. [40] Mr Mason’s circumstances are quite impecunious. He is an undischarged bankrupt earning relatively low wages working as a caregiver for intellectually disabled people. He also has had some employment assisting an im...

4. [2017] NZEnvC 120 Housing New Zealand Corporation v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND Court: Environment Judge C J Thompson Decision No: [2017] NZEnvC 120 of an appeal under the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION (ENV-2016-AKL-0000238) Appellant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Environment Commissioner K A Edmonds Deputy Environment Commissioner R M Bartlett Hearing: at Auckland 27 and 28 June 2017. Site vi

5. BORA Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Bill [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...correspondence or otherwise. There are two limbs to the s 21 right. First, s 21 is applicable only in respect of those activities that constitute a ‘search or seizure’. Secondly, where certain actions do constitute a search or seizure, s 21 protects only against those searches or seizures that are “unreasonable” in the circumstances. A request for information or documents constitutes a search for the purposes of s 21 of the Bill of Rights Act. [2] 11. The Court of Appeal has...

6. BORA Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...security, order and discipline in prisons."[2] This principle lay behind the drafting of the Act and is reflected in the Bill. 5. We have nonetheless identified some features that appear to raise issues of inconsistency with the rights and freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights Act. However, where an issue arises a provision may nevertheless be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act if it can be considered a "reasonable limit" that is "justifiable" in terms of s...

7. [2021] NZREADT 35 - Brady (7 July 2021) [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...transparent, and effective.9 [11] In order to meet the purposes of the Act, penalties for misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct are determined bearing in mind the need to maintain a high standard of conduct in the industry, the need for consumer protection, the maintenance of confidence in the industry, and the need for deterrence. [12] A penalty should be appropriate for the particular nature of the misbehaviour, and the Tribunal should endeavour to maintain consistency in penaltie...

8. Pinnock & Ors as Trustees of the Pinnock Trust v Auckland City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 28 [pdf, 373 KB]

   ............................................................................................. 34 WHAT WERE THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF MR COLE AND MR RAWSON? .......................................................................................................................... 38 DO MR RAWSON AND MR COLE OWE THE CLAIMANTS A DUTY OF CARE? .......................................................................................................................... 41 Roy Rawson ........................

9. BORA Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Social Housing Reform) Amendment Bill [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...59A(1)(f) and (h), and s 61B). 39. Sections 23(4) and 25(d) of the Bill of Rights Act incorporate a limited right to silence and a privilege against self-incrimination. However, the rights contained in these provisions are not as broad as those protected at common law. Whilst the common law protects a right to silence of all persons at the investigation and pre-trial stages, the right to silence in s 23(4) is afforded only to persons who are arrested or detained under an enactment. S...

10. BORA Visiting Forces Bill [pdf, 214 KB]

    ...consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the “Bill of Rights Act”). We understand that this Bill is to be considered by the Cabinet Legislation Committee on Thursday, 6 November 2003. 2. We consider that, taking into account the protections that will be available to service personnel under the domestic laws of States entering into a Status of Forces Agreement (a “SOFA”) with New Zealand, the Bill does not appear to be inconsistent with the Bill of Rights Act....