Search Results

1. Tank Trust v Auckland Council [2013] NZWHT Auckland 20 [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...Nonetheless, it is because of its fundamental investigative role that I think it is dangerous simply to interpret or gloss its explicit statutory processes by reference to Court procedure. [12] The Tribunal is empowered by s 73(1)(c) of the Act to request parties to provide copies of any documents that it reasonably requires. Section 73(2) requires parties to comply with any request or direction made under this section. [13] The Chair’s Directions and the standard direc...

2. WC v AU LCRO 218 / 2012 (6 June 2013) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...AU’s stead. The making of that application was facilitated by Mr WC who forwarded the application to LAMJ on 3 November 2011. [5] Mr AU then received a letter from LAMJ, advising him that in relation to the instructions of June 2010, Mrs AV had requested a change of counsel “due to personal conflict”.1 Mr AU replied to that letter on 21 November 2011 and was subsequently advised by the LAMJ, on 28 November 2011, that Mrs AV’s application to have counsel reassigned was refu...

3. BORA Wills Bill [pdf, 381 KB]

   ...of the Child defines a child as a person under the age of 18 years "unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." Article 12(1) provides that "States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child." 7. In previous advice we have not...

4. LCRO 205/2017 QB v PC [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...complaint to the Complaints Service in his letter dated 7 April 2017. Mr H sent the letter to the Complaints Service as an attachment to an email. [6] Mr H’s letter was written on the firm’s letterhead, and at the top it included the following information: Our reference [Mr H] Direct Dial 0X XXX XXXX Email [Mr H]@[the law firm].co.nz [7] Mr H’s letter began with the following: I am asked by the Partners and [Mr] QB to formulate a response to [the Complaints Service’s...

5. Harris v ACC [2013] NZACA 16 [pdf, 35 KB]

   ...1993. The operation was successful and greatly reduced Mr Harris’s pain, but left him with residual pain, limited mobility because of the stiffness in his back and a decreased ability to do the normal work of a butcher and he could not play any form of serious sport. [20] Mr Aldred concluded that Mr Harris’s Scheurmannn’s disease was not particularly significant as it would not necessarily cause anything but some low grumbly back pain unless it was further up the spine and he al...

6. MBL v Shadforth [2016] NZIACDT 31 (16 June 2016) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...her circumstances and it is evident she has failed to identify what is important and relevant in responding to this complaint; and has not responded to the complaint appropriately. [24] The Tribunal now exercises its power under section 49(4)(b) to request that Ms Shadforth appear before the Tribunal. It is a matter for Ms Shadforth and her counsel, if she is represented, as to whether she does appear. If Ms Shadforth does take up the option, the Tribunal suggests (without limitation) th...

7. HR v OW & CT LCRO 79/2014 (8 September 2015) [pdf, 299 KB]

   ...a capable and experienced lawyer. [16] The lawyers’ litigation expertise is not a contentious aspect of this review. It is their inattention to their professional obligations that is problematic. There is no dispute that it was Ms OW who requested, received, and was shocked by, Mr HR’s fees. Ms OW’s suggestion that she can be excused from compliance with rule 12.2 because she was an employee of [Law Firm A] is troubling because of its inconsistency with the plain wording...

8. BB v WT & Ors LCRO 55/2015 (9 October 2015) [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...that the complaint be considered by the Disciplinary Tribunal, or that the Standards Committee take no further action). The natural meaning of determination relates to some final decision on the matter in hand. [28] In my view, background information, analysis, comments and reasons provided in a Committee’s decision, form part of the composition of the determination and are properly able to be the subject of review. [29] Support for that position is provided by an examinatio...

9. Tuumotooa v Tangilanu [2014] NZIACDT 101 (01 October 2014) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...Justice website: www.justice.govt.nz). [2] In summary the circumstances giving rise to the complaint were: [2.1] Ms Tangilanu lodged a visa application with Immigration New Zealand for the complainants, [2.2] Immigration New Zealand made a routine request for information, [2.3] The complainants provided the information to Ms Tangilanu, [2.4] Ms Tangilanu did not pass the information to Immigration New Zealand, [2.5] The complainants’ application failed as the Ms Tangilanu did not...

10. Tukutau v Tangilanu [2014] NZIACDT 103 (01 October 2014) [pdf, 187 KB]

    ...circumstances are set out fully in that decision (which can be located on the Ministry of Justice website: www.justice.govt.nz). [2] In summary the circumstances giving rise to the complaint were: [2.1] The complainant engaged Ms Tangilanu to assist with a request for a visa; he was in New Zealand without a current visa. He sought Ms Tangilanu’s assistance to get a work visa. [2.2] The complaint was that while Ms Tangilanu had a written agreement, it did not set out the services she...