Search Results

1. Submissions summary: Independent Panel examining the 2014 family justice reforms (second consultation round) [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   1 Although all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this document, the Ministry of Justice disclaims any and all responsibility for any inaccuracy, error, omission, or any other kind of inadequacy, deficiency, or flaw in, or in relation to, the information; and fully excludes any and all liability of any kind to any person or entity that chooses to rely upon the information.

2. Wall v Fairfax New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZHRRT 17 [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2017] NZHRRT 17 Reference No. HRRT 017/2013 UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 BETWEEN LOUISA HARERUIA WALL Plaintiff AND FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant AND THE MARLBOROUGH EXPRESS Second Defendant AND THE CHRISTCHURCH PRESS Third Defendant AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms GJ Goodwin, Member Mr MJM Keefe JP, Member REPRESENTATION: Ms

3. LCRO 131/2017 GR v [Area] Standards Committee [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...of any decision pursuant to s 206(4) of the Act, if publication is necessary or desirable in the public interest. 9 [50] I agree with the Committee. There is educative value in publishing a decision such as this, although there is no public protection purpose to be served by identifying Mr GR. [51] Undertakings are fundamental to the practice of law. There are excellent reasons for principals to limit who can give undertakings, to closely monitor undertakings that are given,...

4. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hintze [2017] NZLCDT 13 [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...following aspects of seriousness: (a) Not completing work, leaving clients unrepresented. (b) Lack of professionalism, not forwarding files, not providing adequate advice. (c) His breach of ethical requirements meant that his clients were not “protected”. (d) Retention of fees which was dishonest. [16] Counsel for the respondent argued for a lesser period of suspension from practice. He submitted that account should be taken of the respondent having gained insight and un...

5. LCRO 195/2014 MC v GK (28 May 2018) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...September 2012). 8 • Mr MC received advice of Mrs GK’s death on 12 June 2009. • Probate was granted on 14 August 2009. • It was necessary to allow a period of 12 months from the grant of Probate to elapse to allow for any Family Protection claims. • The property could not be sold until Mr GK advised he would surrender his right to occupy the property. Settlement of the sale took place on 6 July 2012. Mr GK occupied the property until the date of settlement....

6. Lethbridge v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC) & Fenton [20181] NZREADT 29 [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...4 BD 557, paragraph 4.19. [15] The third element of the proposed additional evidence is set out in a statement from Dr Christine March who is the medical general practitioner who was providing medical care to the complainant in late 2015 when the events which are the subject of the complaint took place. [16] Dr March has given a brief written statement dated 22 June 2018 confirming that the complainant was her patient and that he had chro

7. Family Court Rewrite Submission - ADL [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...families notified of its availability at different stages in the process. It could be recommended to families that would benefit from it, without it causing an additional burden. For example, there can be significant challenges in organising extra childcare for Deaf and Disabled Children who have high and complex needs around their disabilities and impairments. ADL fully supports the recommendations about accessibility and reviewing content and delivery. We hope the review would con...

8. LCRO 113/2020 SM v YL (7 May 2021) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...made the following findings against Mr YL: (a) He failed to act competently and in a timely manner consistent with the terms of his retainer and the duty to take reasonable care. (b) He failed to follow Mr SM’s instructions. (c) He failed to protect and promote Mr SM’s interests. 1 Although Mr YL’ clients were the two trustees of the T Trust, Mr SM was authorised to deal directly with Mr YL and instruct him on behalf of both trustees. For ease of reference in this decision...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Sheat [2023] NZLCDT 50 (7 November 2023) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...“reckless” in the s 7(1)(a)(ii)2 definition of misconduct. Mr Mortimer-Wang submitted that Mr Sheat’s admission of a “wilful” breach necessarily implied calculated dishonesty. 1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 2 LCA. 3 [5] Elements of both calculation (or miscalculation) and dishonesty feature in Mr Sheat’s misconduct but we do not find him guilty to the level imported by the harsh glare of the term “calculated...

10. [2023] NZEnvC 264 Fleet v Ashburton District Council [pdf, 179 KB]

    ...[1] This matter concerns additional charges levied by the Respondent under s 36 of the Act in relation to a non-complying activity consent application filed by the Appellant, Ms Fleet. [2] Ms Fleet applied for consent to undertake works on a protected tree located on her property at 30 Queens Drive, Ashburton. That application was ultimately declined although that is of no moment to these proceedings. [3] Ms Fleet paid the sum of $1,332 by way of a non-notified non-complying s...