5317 items matching your search terms
1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2013] NZHRRT 38 Reference No. HRRT 026/2012 UNDER SECTION 50 OF THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER ACT 1994 BETWEEN DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF AND RUTH NELSON DEFENDANT AT WELLINGTON BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms K Anderson, Member Ms WV Gilchrist, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr A Martin, Director of Proceedings, Plaintiff and Ms H Cook Mr AC Beck for de
...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...
...Tribunal is required to weigh the public interest against Ms Chase- Seymour’s interests. [59] When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty that, short of exclusion from a profession, 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 has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [60] A significant factor in this case is that it involves dishonesty...
...Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr WL1 has applied for a review of the determination by a Standards Committee that Mr WL2 breached rule 13.9 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules3 [2] This review involves a consideration of the application of rule 13.9. The Committee proceeded on the basis that the rule creates a separate obligation to adhere to the rules of privilege generally rather than on the basis t...
...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...
...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...
...have those heard according to law in the same way as civil proceedings between individuals. However, both cll 36 and 174 affect the substantive law. Accordingly, in my view they do not fall within the ambit of s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights, which protects procedural rights. Whether s 19 at issue 9. The Bill provides for the transfer of various assets to claimants and for claimants (and other Maori) to have rights which are not conferred on other people. For example claimants have...
...disclosed; and (b) The disclosure is no more than what is reasonably required to serve the other considerations referred to in paragraph (a). 8. The rule prohibiting disclosure amounts to a prima facie breach of the right to freedom of expression protected by s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act. 9. While parties must agree to engage in the arbitration process and therefore to be bound by the implied confidentiality term, that agreement is made at a time when it is not possible for the part...
...BORA rights might be thought to be relevant to the consistency of the Bill with BORA, viz, s 21 BORA (unreasonable search and seizure) and s 23(4) BORA (right to silence of detained person). In my view neither right is triggered. 5. Section 21 BORA protects everyone against unreasonable search and seizure. Unreasonable search and seizure extends to the forcible provision of information. However, s 21 BORA is not a general guarantee of privacy: see the references in the White Paper pp 103...
...• Valuers Act 1948 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries • Animal Welfare Act 1999 • Biosecurity Act 1993 • Diary Industry Restructuring Act 2001 • Forests Act 1949 Ministry of Culture and Heritage • Flags, Emblems, and Names Protections Act 1981 Ministry of Economic Development • Commerce Act 1986 • Incorporated Societies Act 1908 • Personal Properties Securities Act 1999 • Radiocommunications Act 1989 • Receiverships Act 1993 • Trade Marks Act 200...