Search Results

1. BORA Christ Church Cathedral Reinstatement Bill [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...is, inconsistent with any other Act. Consistency of the Bill with the Bill of Rights Act Section 27(2) – Right to judicial review 15. Section 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act affirms that every person whose rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law have been affected by a determination of any tribunal or other public authority has the right to apply, in accordance with law, for judicial review of that determination. 16. The right to judicial review is intende...

2. [2020] NZREADT 36 - Complaints Assessment Committee 1904 v Bright (24 August 2020) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...hearing in person. However, he submitted that that means he will not have a physical presence at the hearing, such that any perceived distress on the complainant would be reduced significantly. He also noted that the complainant would have the protection of any questions he asked of the complainant being able to be objected to by counsel for the Committee. [10] Mr Bright further submitted that he has suffered significant financial and personal distress as a result of the co...

3. Central Standards Committee 3 v Bong [2023] NZLCDT 24 (8 June 2023) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...dishonourable by lawyers of good standing. Alternatively, the Standards Committee must establish a wilful or reckless breach of the LCA or the Rules, in this case, a breach of r 11.4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. (b) The alternative of negligence or incompetence requires that the negligence or incompetence must be of such a degree as to reflect on the practitioner’s fitness to practice, or as to bring the profession into...

4. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burton [2023] NZLCDT 23 (26 May 2023) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...profession. [26] We do not propose to treat the previous unsatisfactory conduct finding as aggravating (having taken place contemporaneously with the present). But we are troubled that a pattern of behaviour may be emerging at the late stages of the career of this otherwise valuable and long-serving member of the profession. Mr Burton is 76 years old and has been in practice, (in a poorer socio-economic part of Auckland) for 52 years. He told us that he routinely had been working...

5. Algie & Others v ACC [2013] NZACA 6 [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...[1] The Corporation seeks leave pursuant to s111 of the Accident Compensation Act 1982, to appeal to the High Court against the part of 30 January 2013 decision of the Authority ([2013] NZACA 1) that a claim for payment for gratuitous attendant care is permitted under ss 121(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1972 and 80(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1982. [2] Following the provisions of s 111 the grounds are first, that a serious and arguable question of law is raised as to t...

6. [2018] NZEnvC 042 The Architectural Centre v Wellington City Council [pdf, 5.4 MB]

   ...large scale university buildings above and to the west, and a mix of residential activity around including Victoria House hall of residence, multi-unit developments and a number of detached dwellings. Proximity of the site to dwellings necessitates careful consideration of residential amenity across the boundary and is reflected in carefully set permitted activity standards This site is below the established part of the Kelburn campus and currently does not provide for pedestrian access...

7. Algie & Ors v ACC [2013] NZACA 1 [pdf, 118 KB]

   [2013] NZACA 1 ACA 02/11 IN THE MATTER of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to s.107 of the Act BETWEEN JAMES ALGIE AND ORS Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION a body corporate duly constituted under the provisions of the said Act Respondent BEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY R Bedford HEARING at Wellington on 7 & 9 November 2012 APPEARANCES/COUNSEL Mr

8. Tranent v Abingdon LCRO 47 / 2009 (22 May 2009) [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...on 31 March 2009. The review was conducted by a hearing in person on 13 May 2009 at which both parties were present. [3] The complaint has a number of aspects. They include that Mr Abingdon has acted inappropriately and in breach of a duty of care that it is argued he owes to Mr Tranent. It was argued that the duty was breached in the way Mr Abingdon has managed the relationship property issues. In particular Mr Tranent argues that Mr Abingdon has failed to facilitate the release...

9. XT v TT & C Ltd [2024] NZDT 622 (24 July 2024) [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...restrictions I proceeded with the charades to see how a major Insurance company manipulates an individual into making them feel responsible and get them to pay, to the point where I’m now threatened. … The claim against Mr TT Did Mr TT owe a duty of care to Mr XT? 17. The law of tort imposes a duty of care not to cause foreseeable harm to property belonging to another. The applicant has to show that Mr TT owed Mr XT a duty of care, breached the duty, and caused damage. 18. Th...

10. BD v EG LCRO 107/2012 (26 Aug 2015) [pdf, 54 KB]

    ...having followed the process set out in paragraph 10.11 of the NZLS LCS Practice Note. That section refers to fee complaints. The purpose is to identify the lawyer who is responsible for setting the fee. The section calls for committees to give careful consideration as to who is the subject of a costs complaint. Committees are directed to exercise caution in addressing the fees aspect of a complaint in relation to an employed solicitor, such as Mr EG. There is no evidence of the...