Search Results

1. Auckland City Council as Assignee v Irwin [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...6. Respective Roles 12 7. David Irwin 12 8. S J Brentnall Limited 16 9. S J Brentnall 17 10. Ability to Claim 18 11. Role of S J Brentnall 19 Claim-1092.doc Claim-1092.doc 2 12. S J Brentnall Claimed Liability 21 13. Was a Duty of Care owed Independently of the Contractual Obligations? 31 14. Conclusion 44 15. Costs 45 Appendix 47 2. Summary 2.1 The claim is by the Auckland City Council which was sixth respondent, it having taken an assignment of the claim fr...

2. AFU v ZUC and ZUB [2013] NZDT 260 (21 March 2013) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...respondents are liable and, if liable, the amount of their liability. These issues are determined on the evidence (what most likely happened) and law (negligence). Law [5] In law, the tort of negligence requires: (i) A breach of a duty of care owed to another person which results in reasonably foreseeable loss to the other person; and (ii) A duty of care owed to persons in such a relationship of proximity that a reasonable person would recognise that harm might ensue to...

3. BORA Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill [pdf, 187 KB]

   Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 2006 24 March 2006 Attorney-General LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (CLIMATE PROTECTION) AMENDMENT BILL 2006 1. We have considered the Resource Management (Climate Protection) Amendment Bill 2006 (‘the Bill’), a Member’s Bill in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons MP, for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (‘the Bill of Rights Act’). The Bil...

4. BORA Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill [pdf, 27 KB]

   Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill 6 May 2004 Attorney-General LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: PARENTAL LEAVE & EMPLOYMENT PROTECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1. We have considered whether the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (the "Bill") (PCO 5787/8) is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 ("Bill of Rights Act"). We understand that the Bill will be considered by...

5. LCRO 212/2016 LMN Law v HR [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...Mr LM refused to accept Ms HR’s undertaking and followed the directive in Guideline 2.55, which provides: A lawyer should not seek, accept or need to rely on an undertaking from a non- lawyer. The paramount concern for the lawyer must be the protection of the interests of the client concerned. Undertakings given by lawyers can be and are enforced by a Court under its inherent jurisdiction arising from the fact that lawyers are officers of the Court. Conveyancing practitioners are n...

6. LCRO 212/2016 LM v HR (22 September 2017) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...Mr LM refused to accept Ms HR’s undertaking and followed the directive in Guideline 2.55, which provides: A lawyer should not seek, accept or need to rely on an undertaking from a non- lawyer. The paramount concern for the lawyer must be the protection of the interests of the client concerned. Undertakings given by lawyers can be and are enforced by a Court under its inherent jurisdiction arising from the fact that lawyers are officers of the Court. Conveyancing practitioners are n...

7. Auckland Standards Committee 5 and Southland Standards Committee v Taia [2022] NZLCDT 17 (9 June 2022) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...services.18 [22] The Standards Committee seeks an order striking off the practitioner, the most severe penalty order. We are obliged to consider the least restrictive outcome. The correct approach is described in Daniels:19 Tribunals are required to carefully consider alternatives to striking off a practitioner. If the purposes of imposing disciplinary sanctions can be achieved short of striking off then it is the lesser alternative that should be adopted as the proportionate resp...

8. Milne v Lodge [2010] NZWHT Wellington 3 [pdf, 221 KB]

   .......................................................................................................... 17 Summary of Quantum ................................................................................... 17 DO HAYDN LODGE OR DEBRA LODGE-SCHNELLENBERG OWE THE MILNES A DUTY OF CARE, AND IF SO, HAVE THEY BREACHED THAT DUTY OF CARE? ................................................................................................................. 17 SUMMARY OF AWARD .........................

9. DA v EB LCRO 7/2013 (3 December 2014) - Penalty and Costs [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...August 2014 in which findings of unsatisfactory conduct were made against Ms DA pursuant to s 12(c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) in respect of six breaches of the Act, the Trust Accounts Regulations, and the Conduct and Client Care Rules made under the Act. [2] Ms DA was ordered to cancel her fees to Ms EB, and refund $2,117.24, which she and Ms EB say she has done. [3] Both parties were invited to tender submissions with respect to penalty orders and costs...

10. [2025] NZREADT 26 - EC & KN v CAC 2204 & ST (18 July 2025) [pdf, 308 KB]

    ...and groceries with his EFTPOS card. His car was never entered into her name. She denied having any involvement in the vendor’s will changes and was not present at any legal meetings involving his will. [27] The second respondent said she cared for the vendor as a friend and only wanted the best possible outcome for him. [28] A statement was also provided to the Authority investigator by the hospital social worker, NJ on 10 April 2024.3 [29] NJ said that she received a social...