Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Ram [2011] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...3 indicated he would plead guilty in respect of misconduct at the core of the charges. The charges sought to be withdrawn either dealt with misconduct of the same nature as covered by the charges which were proceeding, or involved less serious matters that may not have reached the misconduct threshold. [8] Accordingly the Tribunal granted leave to the withdrawal of Charges 3 and 4. Mr Ram, of course, had consented to the withdrawal in the joint memorandum of 9 November. [9] Mr Ra...

2. LCRO 140/2017 ZS v XD (23 July 2018) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...evidence, and did not defend Ms ZS vigorously enough against allegations made about her. [5] Ms ZS complained to the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS). Complaint [6] Ms ZS’ complaint to NZLS sets out her concerns over Ms XD’s conduct of her matter. The complaint was determined with input from Ms XD. The Committee’s view was that Ms ZS had not provided sufficient information to prove her complaint. Review application [7] Ms ZS applied for a review saying that Ms XD had...

3. Marshall v Ratu - Whangape Lot 65B Sec 2A Block (2021) 227 Waikato Maniapoto MB 148 (227 WMN 148) [pdf, 400 KB]

   ...It is accepted that part of the homestead encroaches on the Whangape Lot 65B Section 2A block (the trust block). For some years, Mrs Marshall, the owners of the trust land and the trustees of the trust have attempted to resolve this encroachment. Matters came to a head on 20 October 2018, when the trustees gave Mrs Marshall notice of their intention to remove the homestead from the trust block. Mrs Marshall subsequently applied to the Court for an injunction prohibiting the trustees f...

4. JE v AC and SY LCRO 259/2012 (17 February 2015) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...review, I have been unable to identify any basis in the complaint for the Committee to have considered Mrs JE’s professionalism in representing the congregation, or the potential conflict of interest. The Committee’s treatment of both of those matters is in the nature of an own motion enquiry. No such enquiry is recorded as having been made. However, on review Mrs JE’s clients have confirmed their support for her, and their satisfaction with the services she provided. Ther...

5. 2021-02-22 Minute - PC8 - Willowridge Developments Ltd - s 281 application [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...direction, which must (inter alia) state the due date for submissions;7 b. receiving submissions under s 149E from any person irrespective of whether they made submissions to the local authority;8 c. in the context of plan changes, plan variations, or matters relating to regional policy statements: i. providing a summary of the submissions received under s 149E; and 2 MOC on behalf of Otago Regional Council, 16 December 2020 at para 4. 3 At 6. 4 RMA, s 142. 5 RMA, s 141...

6. Nikora v Te Uru Taumatua - Te Uru Taumatua Trust [2020] Maori Appellate Court MB 248 (2020 Appeal 248) [pdf, 308 KB]

   ...248 I TE KOOTI PĪRA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TE WAIARIKI In the Māori Appellate Court of New Zealand Waiariki District A20190009860 WĀHANGA Under Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of An appeal against a judgment made at 221 Waiariki MB 200-208 dated 17 October 2019 I WAENGA I A Between PAKI NIKORA, TE KAUNIHERA KAUMATUA O TŪHOE Ngā kaitono Applicants And TŪHOE – TE URU...

7. Hoban v Attorney-General [2022] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...against or bring into contempt any group of persons on the ground of the colour, race, or ethnic or national origins of that group of persons: 61 Racial disharmony (1) It shall be unlawful for any person— (a) to publish or distribute written matter which is threatening, abusive, or insulting, or to broadcast by means of radio or television or other electronic communication words which are threatening, abusive, or insulting; or (b) to use in any public place as defined in section...

8. LCRO 330/2013 PR v RW (17 July 2017) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...PR has applied for a review of the determination by [Area] Standards Committee to take no further action in respect of his complaints about Mr RW. Background [2] In 2010 and the years following Mr RW acted as counsel for Mr PR on a number of matters which included: (a) An application under s 94 of the Land Transport Act 1998. (b) Defending Mr PR on a loss of traction charge. (c) Defending Mr PR on other charges. [3] On 27 July 2010 Mr RW provided a letter of engagement which...

9. Independent Electoral Review Final Report Executive Summary and List of Recommendations [pdf, 655 KB]

   ...Electoral Review Final Report | Executive Summary 13 He Arotake Pōtitanga Motuhake Independent Electoral Review Executive Summary Background 1. We were established as an independent panel in May 2022 by the Minister of Justice to review Aotearoa New Zealand’s electoral system. Our Terms of Reference cover almost everything to do with how our elections work.1 2. We approached our task independently and with open minds. Taking a principled approach, we c...

10. [2014] NZEmpC 78 Workforce Development Ltd v Hill [pdf, 76 KB]

    ...both unjustifiably dismissed and subjected to unjustifiable disadvantage in the Authority. He submits that while the Authority concluded that the defendant had been unjustifiably dismissed, and made no findings in relation to disadvantage, all matters are globally before the Court on a de novo challenge. [8] The submissions advanced on behalf of the defendant reflect a misunderstanding. A de novo challenge does not provide the blank canvas that is contended for. If the defend...