Search Results

Search results for judgments on line.

2844 items matching your search terms

  1. Canterbury Standards Committee v Sisson [2011] NZLCDT 16 [pdf, 186 KB]

    ...her client’s interests ahead of her own at all times in terms of Rule 1.01 which reads: “1.01 Rule The relationship between practitioner and client is one of trust and confidence which must never be abused. Commentary 1. The professional judgment of a practitioner should at all times be exercised within the bounds of the law solely for the benefit of the client and free of compromising influences and loyalties. 2. The practitioner should never seek an advancement of personal...

  2. LCRO 116/2015 QO v Standards Committee (14 June 2018) [pdf, 208 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]. 4 [10] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way...

  3. LCRO 138/2015 AZ, VY and CX v DW and EV [pdf, 260 KB]

    ...solicitor in the firm, Mr KQ, who had been with the firm since 2001 and had some 11 years’ experience. [14] Mr KQ deposed that when he began acting for the respondents, his experience “included 45 commercial litigation cases resulting in judgments” most of which, if not all, were High Court cases. Mr KQ further deposed that at least one of the matters went to the Court of Appeal several times and the Privy Council.1 [15] The applicants say that the respondents requested t...

  4. Firmin v The Committee of Management of Atihau Whanganui Incorporation - Atihau Whanganui Incorporation (2016) 352 Aotea MB 233 (352 AOT 233) [pdf, 329 KB]

    ...MANAGEMENT OF ATIHAU WHANGANUI INCORPORATION Respondent Hearings: 344 Aotea MB 156-164 dated 17 November 2015 346 Aotea MB 270-277 dated 16 December 2015 Appearances: D Woodbridge for the applicant J Unsworth for the respondent Judgment: 12 May 2016 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE L R HARVEY Solicitors: Mr D Woodbridge, Evans Henderson Woodbridge, Solicitors, 333 Wellington Road, Marton DX PA845...

  5. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v Schlooz [2021] NZLCDT 12 ( 14 April 2021) [pdf, 400 KB]

    ...applied to the District Court for an Harassment Order, in September 2019. Following a defended hearing on that application on 15 May 2020, Her Honour Judge Bouchier made an order in the complainant’s favour. The complainant points out that the judgment strongly endorsed her grounds for making the application. [18] Importantly, Her Honour went on to make strong comments of condemnation about Mr Schlooz. She said at paragraph [19]:3 3 K v Schlooz [2020] NZDC 8576. 5...

  6. CD and Anor v GH LCRO 98/2013 (3 August 2016) [pdf, 102 KB]

    ...challenge the Committee’s findings of unsatisfactory conduct that arise from his operation of the firm’s trust account. Given the facts he admits, it would be difficult for him to argue he had not been partisan or had exercised his professional judgement solely for the benefit of the [CDs] jointly (rather than individually, at all times). As a result, the relationship of confidence and trust between him and the [CDs] jointly was abused, albeit (understandably) Ms [CD] appears to be...

  7. Kingsnorth v Crawford - Motuaruhe 5D (2018) 199 Waiariki MB 203 (199 WAR 203) [pdf, 368 KB]

    ...14 December 2017, 178 Waiariki MB 56-67 (Teleconference) 12 April 2018, 185 Waiariki MB 73-78 (Teleconference) 15-16 May 2018, 187 Waiariki MB 225-340 (Heard at Ōpōtiki) Appearances: L Hemi for Applicant T Wara for Respondents Judgment: 24 October 2018 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C T COXHEAD Copies to: L Hemi, Potts and Hodgson Barristers and Solicitors, P O Box 444, Ōpōtiki 3162 leonard@pottshodgson.co.nz T Wara, Tu Pono Legal Limited, P O Box...

  8. LCRO 62/2017 & LCRO 63/2017 HC and RE v DL (9 January 2020) [pdf, 239 KB]

    ...LCRO on review [41] The role of the LCRO on review is to reach his own view of the evidence before him. Where the review is of an exercise of discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his own judgement for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. Nature and Scope of Review [42] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:4 … the powe...

  10. Turner v University of Otago (Costs) [2021] NZHRRT 48 [pdf, 250 KB]

    ...and [9.8]) and if awarded, the amount will usually be modest in nature. Simply expressed, the Tribunal must preserve meaningful access to justice. [7.2] To be consistent with the HRA, s 105, decisions on costs must be made by exercising a broad judgment based on general principles applied to specific fact situations. Compare, for example, the contrasting circumstances in the three relatively recent decisions of Smith, Lohr v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs) [2016] NZHRRT 36 (L...