120 items matching your search terms
...investigation), Mr Feschiev pointed out what he said were untrue statements, and set out what he said was evidence of the untruthfulness. In large part, his responses referred to email communications. 3 See Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority [2016] NZREADT 3. [62] We do not consider that we would be assisted by hearing oral cross-examination. Accordingly, we decline leave for evidence to be given by Mr Zlatkov, and for c...
...prosecute all or part of the plaintiff’s proceeding to trial and judgment; or (b) the defendant fails to prosecute all or part of the defendant’s counterclaim to trial and judgment. [42] In Lovie v Medical Assurance Society New Zealand Ltd,10 Eichelbaum CJ, in dealing with the application of the rule, stated: ... the applicant must show that the plaintiff has been guilty of inordinate delay, that such delay is inexcusable, and that it has seriously prejudiced the defendant...
...The test to be applied 11.3 Whether doubts render convictions unsafe & warrant grant of pardon 12. Concluding remarks Appendices A. Professor Davies – CV B. Professor Davies – Report C. Dr Sas – CV D. Dr Sas – Report E. Sir Thomas Eichelbaum – CV 4 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Terms of Reference (1)(a)(i) (review of overseas reports & memoranda) The review has shown that the New Zealand methodology of 1991 for interviewing children in suspected abuse cases was well up w...
...[78] While there was also a ground advanced as to family members sharing the same name, we noted in our interim decision that was given little weight. That is really the only ground remaining and we consider, having regard to the decision in Eichelbaum that it is insufficient in the present matter to displace the starting point of openness contained in s 240 of the LCA. There is simply insufficient evidence to justify a finding that the interests of the practitioners and their fami...
...8 judgment, to be made by the tribunal as an informed and expert body on all the facts of the case. [30] As a Full Court observed in McDonald v Canterbury District Law Society (High Court, Wellington, M 215/87, 10 August 1989, Eichelbaum CJ, Heron and Ellis JJ) at p 12: Even in the absence of dishonesty, striking-off will be appropriate where there has been a serious breach of a solicitor’s fundamental duties to his client. [31] It is important to bear in mind tha...
...[30] In reply submissions, F&B refers to additional cases where a party who had conducted litigation using an in-house lawyer, was able to recover costs; Henderson Borough Council v Auckland Regional Authority,21 Joint Action Funding Ltd v Eichelbaum,22 McGuire v Secretary for Justice,23 and Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Northland Regional Council.24 [31] While none of these cases involve RMA proceedings, counsel submits that there is no princ...
...difficult exercise of judgment, to be made by the tribunal as an informed and expert body on all the facts of the case. [30] As a Full Court observed in McDonald v Canterbury District Law Society (High Court, Wellington, M 215/87, 10 August 1989, Eichelbaum CJ, Heron and Ellis JJ) at p 12: Even in the absence of dishonesty, striking-off will be appropriate where there has been a serious breach of a solicitor’s fundamental duties to his client. [31] It is important to bear in mind t...
...difficult exercise of judgment, to be made by the tribunal as an informed and expert body on all the facts of the case. [30] As a Full Court observed in McDonald v Canterbury District Law Society (High Court, Wellington, M 215/87, 10 August 1989, Eichelbaum CJ, Heron and Ellis JJ) at p 12: Even in the absence of dishonesty, striking-off will be appropriate where there has been a serious breach of a solicitor’s fundamental duties to his client. 9 [31] It is important to...
...[it] thinks fit”) that a re-hearing is not a matter of procedure. It is a significant aspect of jurisdiction and the power to regulate procedure cannot be used to increase jurisdiction. See Browne v Minister of Immigration [1990] NZAR 67, 69-70 (Eichelbaum CJ). To similar effect see Akewushola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 2 All ER 148 (CA) at 153j where Sedley LJ, delivering the judgment of the Court, stated: For my part I do not think that, slips apart, a sta...
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2021] NZLCRO 205 Ref: LCRO 236/2020 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN TB Applicant AND APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A PROSECUTORIAL DECISION DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been chang