Search Results

1. Barfoot & Thompson Ltd v CAC302 & Ors [2016] NZREADT 22 [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...defect before disclosing such to others and, if the client does not agree to this disclosure, the licensee is to cease to act pursuant to Rule 10.8. [26] Mr Rea submits that, furthermore, it would be contrary to the purpose of Rule 10.7, which is the protection of customers, for disclosure of an adverse methamphetamine test to be delayed pending receipt of confirmation of such disclosure from a vendor. He noted that Mr N Powell of Forensic & Industrial Science Ltd gave evidence that...

2. S v J LCRO 5 / 2008 (13 February 2009) [pdf, 39 KB]

   ...That advice may have been provided forcefully. It may also be the case that Client S’s son, being in custody, felt pressured to accept the proposal, as it appeared the only way to get out of custody more or less immediately. [33] I have read carefully Client S’s son’s account of this series of events which he wrote in support of the Law Society complaint and is dated 10 October 2008. I place considerable weight on it. While he maintains his innocence in that letter and indica...

3. LCRO 130/2016 RB v ZB (28 June 2017) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...Concerning the disparaging remarks issue the decision of the Standards Committee is confirmed. Orders [1] In giving consideration as to whether it is appropriate to order a penalty, it is to be noted that the function of the disciplinary process is protective, not punitive.40 In these particular circumstances, other than the public interest in lawyers maintaining professional standards and ensuring compliance with the rules, no broader issues of consumer protection or public welfa...

4. LCRO 207/2015 CA v BE (21 August 2018) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...context of the breakdown of the employment relationship between Mrs CA and Mr BE’s client; 4 (d) Mr BE’s language and assertions were undoubtedly a reflection of the state of affairs between the parties; (e) Ms C’s instructions were protected by legal privilege and the Committee cannot go behind that to assess them; and (f) no other ancillary issues raised by Mrs CA raised professional conduct issues. Application for review [14] Mrs CA filed an application for review...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 138 Pilgrim v Attorney-General [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...application.14 Again, it is necessary to understand the facts of each case to understand the extent to which they assist in deciding the matters raised in the context of these proceedings. The first is CNY17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which concerned whether the Immigration Assessment Authority’s decision was invalid due to apprehended bias. The information provided to the Authority included a large amount of material which was irrelevant and prejudicial,...

6. Erwood v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 92 [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...centre 5 of the occlusal surface of tooth 47. I enquired if he could feel it as cold – and, there being no response, checked for a difference on the adjacent tooth, the 46. I am aware of the importance to avoid respiratory issues and took care with the quantity and direction of application. Mr Erwood certainly did not demonstrate any adverse symptoms when he was present at my surgery and after the spray had been administered. There was no clear response on the teeth to th...

7. Auckland Standards Committee v Castles [2013] NZLCDT 53 [pdf, 277 KB]

   NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2013] NZLCDT 53 LCDT 037/12 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and the Law Practitioners Act 1982 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE No. 3 AND EION MALCOLM JAMES CASTLES of Auckland, Lawyer CHAIR Judge D F Clarkson MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Mr W Chapman Ms C Rowe Ms M Scholtens QC Mr P Shaw HEARING at AUCKLAND DATES 18-19 July, 19-21

8. Holmes v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2014] NZHRRT 54 [pdf, 214 KB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHRRT 54 Reference No. HRRT 012/2012 UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT 1993 BETWEEN GORDON HENRY HOLMES PLAINTIFF AND HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION DEFENDANT AT DUNEDIN BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms WV Gilchrist, Member Ms ST Scott, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr GH Holmes in person Ms CP Paterson for Defendant DATE OF HEARING: 17, 18, 19 and 20 March 2014 DATE OF LAST SUBMI

9. [2023] NZEnvC 176 Prouse Trust Partnership v Horowhenua District Council [pdf, 8.3 MB]

   ...housing at a range of densities; - Provision for a local-scale commercial centre; - Access to quality public open space; - Safe and efficient walking and cycling options; - Design that reflects Muaūpoko cultural values and local history and identity; - Protection of culturally significant sites; - Environmentally sensitive design; 6A OBJECTIVES/POLICIES: TARA-IKA MULTI-ZONE PRECINCT Horowhenua District Plan 4 - Within the Arapaepae Road Special Treatment Overlay, development that is app...

10. Otago Standards Committee v Davidson [2012] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 160 KB]

    ...but she took no steps to correct the matter. 3 Affidavit of David James More dated 20 th August 2012, Exhibit “A” at page 18 of the Standards Committee Bundle. 8 [30] The need to protect the public and the need to maintain public confidence in the legal profession are key elements in the professional disciplinary regime in which we operate. These elements were spelt out in Bolton v Law Society4 and they have subseq...