Search Results

1. Nelson Standards Committee v Downing and Reith [2022] NZLCDT 21 (27 June 2022) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...principles underlying the imposition of penalty are also set out in the submissions on behalf of the Standards Committee and are acknowledged by the practitioners. [7] The purpose of the imposition of penalty orders is not a punitive one but is protective, in terms of the Act.4 Specifically, s 3 prescribes: the protection of the public, the maintenance of professional standards and the maintenance of confidence of the public in the legal profession. [8] There are also, analog...

2. LCRO 103/2022 RP v DQ (25 September 2024) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...office to deliver the anti-money laundering documents which Ms TJ had provided to them. [6] It was proposed that the Agreement would be signed by MK, who, Ms RP was told, had been appointed by Mrs WK as her attorney for both property and personal care and welfare. [7] On the following day, Ms TJ sent the anti-money laundering forms to MK with advice as to what was required by way of supporting documentation. [8] At 5 pm on the same day, Mrs WK’s lawyer (Ms CY) sent an email...

3. Appendices report: Qualitative study on behalf of the Independent Panel examining the 2014 family justice system reforms [pdf, 582 KB]

   ...the Minister of Justice asked an Independent Panel to examine the impacts of a package of reforms made to the family justice system in 2014. The 2014 reforms changed the services and processes available to help separating couples agreeing on the care and contact arrangements for their children. The Independent Panel’s Terms of Reference require it to consult widely with those using and working in the family justice system to understand the overall effect of the 2014 changes, and pa...

4. [2016] NZEmpC 65 Caffe Coffee (NZ) Ltd v Farrimond [pdf, 418 KB]

   ...and scope of the intended business operation. That led to a wide range of assertions some of which were speculative. Whilst it was understandable that Mr Alford reacted in this way, his reasoning with regard to particular assertions requires careful analysis as to accuracy. That said, his evidence was given openly and honestly; on a number of issues he made appropriate concessions which persuaded the Court that his evidence on matters of which he had direct knowledge was reliabl...

5. [2017] NZEnvC 207 Auckland Council [pdf, 734 KB]

   ...Regeneration Company 11. Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment 12. Institute of Environmental Science Research 13. NIWA (iii) Environment and Recreation Groups 14. Environmental Defence Society Incorporated 15. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated 16. Friends of the Earth (New Zealand) Foundation 17. Watercare Harbour Clean-up Trust 18. Sea Cleaners Charitable Trust 19. Sustainable Coastlines Charitable Trust 20. Wai Care 21. T...

6. BORA Financial Markets Conduct Bill [pdf, 474 KB]

   ...Bill, we note that reversal of the onus of proof is generally considered to be more easily justifiable for "regulatory" offences. Those who choose to participate in regulated industries should be expected to meet certain expectations of care and accept the enhanced standards of behaviour. The offences discussed in this advice are regulatory in nature. • With respect to the penalty level of the offences discussed in this advice it is important to note that in the finan...

7. List-of-Fee-Changes-1-July-2025.pdf [pdf, 519 KB]

   ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Disputes Tribunal ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Immigration and Protection Tribunal ......................................................................................................................... 19 Lawyers and Conveyan...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Woodroffe [2025] NZLCDT 1 (7 January 2025) [pdf, 258 KB]

   ...admitted (what was plainly evident to us) that some of her material during the 13 September 2020 broadcast referred to the client’s case. [31] Mrs Woodroffe argues that she had the right to say what she did because her freedom of expression is protected under s 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. She regards her broadcasts as a public service because she addresses legal matters that may be of interest to listeners. She finds that using real examples adds interest to...

9. [2021] NZACC 32 - Fisher v ACC (9 February 2021) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...intermittent and it wasn’t minor. We are talking about major industrial motors, probably the motors would be the equivalent of the size of a car motor but because they weren’t muffled they contributed a lot more noise. He said that no hearing protection was offered. [3] There is an affidavit from Mr Arthur, who worked in the same factory. He said: … 21. The overall noise level in the factory was high. If I wanted to communicate with another person, shouting would n...

10. LCRO 32/2024 MP v LG (21 January 2025) [pdf, 207 KB]

    ...[23] After setting out her view of the course of events, the applicant summarised the elements of her complaint as follows: 1. Failed to deliver any legal services to me. 2. Violated the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules) by not acting in accordance with the prescribed rules of conduct and client care for lawyers. 3. Demands payment for services she had never provided. 1 I presume she meant “detailed”, or “comprehensive”....