Search Results

1. Huang v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 26 [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...DETERMINATION (Claim by Auckland Council, First Respondent against Mr Owen Lamb, the Third Respondent) Adjudicator: P J Andrew Page 2 INTRODUCTION [1] In a determination dated 16 March 2012 the Tribunal, by consent, entered judgement against the Auckland Council, the first respondent, in the sum of $340,000. The Auckland Council conceded liability for substantial defects in construction as set out in the claimant’s statement of claim of 28 June 2011. This incl...

2. BU v DG LCRO 276 / 2011 (17 September 2013) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) on review is to reach her own view of the evidence before her. Where the review is of an exercise of discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise particular caution before substituting her own judgement for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. Review Hearing [10] DG and BU, with counsel BV, attended and participated in a review hearing in Auckland on 10 September 2013. Background [11] The complaint by BU a...

3. RH v LV LCRO 189 / 2011 (25 September 2012) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...‘logical connection’ is understood to be that both involve professional conduct issues, insofar as the Practitioner has previously made a number of very serious allegations about the Member’s professional conduct, and that Member now sits in judgement on a complaint about the Practitioner’s professional conduct. The fact that complaints or allegations may not have been upheld is not necessarily material as it is not disputed that serious allegations were made. [56] T...

4. LD Trust v CN LCRO 300/2013 (29 November 2016) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [54] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:11 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determina...

5. LCRO 189/2016 EM v FN and GP (19 May 2017) [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. 1 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]-[41]. 8 [42] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:...

6. GZ v Lu [2019] NZIACDT 15 (15 March 2019) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...serious breach of the Code to permit unlicensed individuals to give immigration advice even once. They might have committed offences for which there can be imprisonment. This is more than just a failure to make an enquiry or a minor error of judgment, as characterised by Mr McLeod. 13 See Headsun solicitor’s letter, 9 September 2016. 13 Conclusion [65] It was by using Mr Lu’s licence that the staff of Headsun could mislead the...

7. LCRO 35/2018 MR v GB (4 April 2019) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...author of the text Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer notes:13 Subsequent authority … suggests that a censure should be recognised as a significant penalty in its own right and not trivialised. [66] The author refers to the judgment of the High Court in Bhanabhai v Auckland District Law Society where the court says:14 13 Duncan Webb, Kathryn Dalziel and Kerry Cook Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer...

8. Audit-and-monitoring-policy [pdf, 376 KB]

   ...Provider given draft for comment 16 Serious audit findings and corrective actions 16 Section C – Special Audits 17 Overview 17 About special audits 17 Referral 17 Special audit process 17 Files to be audited 17 Notice period 18 Timeline 18 Provider given draft for comment 18 Provider does not meet expectations (that is, has a rating of poor or very poor) 18 Summary of process 18 Appendix 1 – Glossary 20 Glossary of Terms 20 6 Overview of Audits O...

9. OIA-108159.pdf [pdf, 2.8 MB]

   ...to 2,429 reports in 2022 at a cost of $6.45 million. Since 2017, approximately 8,231 reports have been funded through legal aid and PDS, at a total cost of approximately $20.354 million. This growth in the use of section 27 coincides with guideline judgments from the appellate courts which highlighted the pertinence of the offender’s background, including their cultural background, at sentencing.4 10. We understand that by committing to remove Government funding for section 27 reports...

10. [2019] NZEmpC 40 Berry v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [pdf, 328 KB]

    ...AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT Defendant Hearing: 10-11 December 2018 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: S Berry, plaintiff in person E Tait, counsel for defendant Judgment: 5 April 2019 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M E PERKINS Introduction [1] These proceedings have been removed to the Court by way of a minute of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) dated 1 June 2018. In view of...