Search Results

1. [2020] NZREADT 24 - Schroder (16 June 2020) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...the offending occurred at a time when his personal circumstances were particularly difficult. On this point, we accept Ms Davies submission that while those circumstances may explain the offending, it cannot excuse it. [40] Taking the above matters into account, we have concluded that the appropriate penalty orders are for censure and a fine of $2,000. Committee’s application for costs Jurisdiction to order payment of costs [41] Section 110A of the Act has provided as follow...

2. Cooper v Hamilton Pharmacy 2011 Ltd (Pre-Trial Admissibility Ruling) [2018] NZHRRT 53 [pdf, 3.8 MB]

   ...current form on the grounds that it is hearsay and is prejudicial. The response by Mr Cooper [13] The submissions for Mr Cooper point out that there does not appear to be any challenge that Ms Barrett's evidence is directly relevant to the matters before the Tribunal. On the question whether the evidence is hearsay, it is submitted the evidence is tended not as proof of the truth of what the unnamed colleague said. Rather it is evidence of what the unnamed colleague said to Ms Bar...

3. Von Tunzelman v Southland Regional Development Agency Ltd and Tracey Wayte Ltd (Strike-Out-Applications) [2022] NZHRRT 18 [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...enough for Mr Von Tunzelman to simply show that he raised a matter in a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner if that aspect of the complaint was not notified by the Privacy Commissioner to the defendant. It is a fundamental requirement of natural justice that a defendant knows what it is that they are accused of doing wrong. [24] Accordingly, the Tribunal must strike out those parts of Mr Von Tunzelman’s claim before this Tribunal which relate to IPPs 5, 7 and 8 as they were not inv...

4. [2024] NZEmpC 25 Roberts v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...because monetary damages were minimal. Breaches of collective agreement terms can have a broader impact on the workplace and employment relationships than that which can be measured in purely financial terms. It would not be in the interests of justice if such claims were shut down prematurely. [37] As noted in the recent Supreme Court decision of Smith v Fonterra Co- operative Group Ltd: “Pre-emptive elimination is only appropriate where it can be said that whatever the fact...

5. Auckland Standards Committee v Holmes [2011] NZLCDT 31 [pdf, 94 KB]

   NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZLCDT 31 LCDT 017/11 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 5 OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Applicant AND JOHN ROBIN HOLMES Respondent CHAIR Judge D F Clarkson MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Mr W Chapman Mr J Clarke Ms C Rowe Mr I Williams HEARING at AUCKLAND on 26 October 2011 APPEARANCES Mr P Co...

6. GL v TT & LT [2022] NZDT 249 (7 December 2022) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

7. ZM v BQ [2025] NZDT 85 (27 February 2025) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...specialise in the treatment of dental pain, in particular root canal treatments. 12. In December 2021, ZM returned to [Dentist] in [Town]. She had a 3D-scan done on her teeth. She contacted BQ in January 2022 to let him know about the scan and other matters. This is discussed in more detail below. 13. In late January 2022, [Dentist] (TM) carried out an extraction of a tooth that [Dentist] identified as cracked, and fitted an implant. 14. ZM filed this claim on 17 October 2024...

8. WN v ZM & Ors [2025] NZDT 128 (26 February 2025) [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

9. AB v CD LCRO 332/2013 [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...relied on that in deciding to decline cover for Mr CD under the policy. [30] On 21 March 2012 Mr CD ended his retainer with Mr AB and instructed his solicitor, Mr [IJ], to make enquiries of Mr AB, and request written responses from him.7 The matters Mr [IJ] raised included Mr AB having advised [Insurer] that it had grounds to decline cover to Mr CD under the policy. Mr [IJ] referred to Mr CD having continued to instruct Mr AB in the negligence proceedings at his own expense, and t...

10. Otago Standards Committee v Claver [2019] NZLCDT 8 [pdf, 343 KB]

    ...practitioner was deliberately misleading, he was at least reckless in making the statements he made. Mr Shaw also accepts that the practitioner was stressed and unwell at the time. [7] In relation to the false declaration to the Law Society, a matter which the Tribunal views very seriously, the Standards Committee pointed to Mr Claver’s acceptance, in evidence, that there were at least two aspects of the order that he had not complied with. [8] The self-reporting aspect contain...