Search Results

1. National and Auckland Standards Committees v Orlov [2013] NZLCDT 3 [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...AUCKLAND this 12th day of February 2013 ________________ Judge D F Clarkson Chairperson Addendum to the decision The Tribunal considers that Mr Orlov must cooperate with the Tribunal. His very basic obligation is to file his response in the proper form promptly. That is to be filed within 7 days of today’s date. We refer for clarity in that regard remarks of the High Court in Hart v Auckland Standards Committee 1 of the New Zealand Law Society1 in terms of th...

2. Form 24 Search Warrant [docx, 18 KB]

   ...be claimed Claims for privilege for things seized or sought to be seized 1 If you wish to claim privilege in respect of any thing seized or sought to be seized under this search warrant,— (a) you must, as soon as practicable, provide to the person responsible for executing the search warrant a particularised list of the things in respect of which the privilege is claimed: (b) if the thing or things in respect of which you are claiming the privilege cannot be adequately particularised, you may...

3. CW v XB LCRO 213 / 2010 (15 June 2011) [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...regardless, showing a total disregard for the rights of the house owners or whether the house sale was legal. He considered this was a proper inference to be drawn from the Respondent’s letter. [12] I examined the letter which appears to be a response to an earlier communication from the debtors’ lawyer. It is reasonable to assume that this was the letter alerting the Respondent to the error. The Respondent had replied that the writ of sale was based on a sealed judgment a...

4. Falmouth v Holyhead LCRO 172 / 2009 (19 January 2010) [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...Society v C [2008] 3 NZLR 105). Conduct unbecoming could relate to conduct both in the capacity as a lawyer, and also as a private citizen. The test will be whether the conduct is acceptable according to the standards of "competent, ethical, and responsible practitioners" (B v Medical Council [2005] 3 NZLR 810 per Elias J at p 811). [6] For negligence to amount to a professional breach the standard found in s 106 and 112 of the Law Practitioners Act 1982 must be breached....

5. Rugby v Auckland Standards Committee LCRO 67 / 2010 (12 July 2010) [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...Standards Committee in relation to its investigation. I noted that the Practitioner had been given the opportunity to respond to the Committee’s concerns, that he responded on 21 November 2009, and that the Committee was dissatisfied with his response. The Committee then resolved to set the matter down for a hearing on the papers pursuant to section 152(1) of the Act. The Practitioner was sent a Notice of Hearing on 18 February 2010, which advised a hearing date of 19 March 2010,...

6. Lothian v Alloa LCRO 148 / 2009 (26 November 2009) [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...calculation of the time spent on the matter. A number of other considerations are to be taken into account (which are now set out in r 9.1 of the Rules of Conduct and CLothianent Care). They include such matters as the skill, specialised knowledge, and responsibility required to perform the services properly; the importance of the matter to the client and the results achieved; the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer; and the fee customarily charged in the market and loca...

7. Waitangi Tribunal - Reprioritisation of work programme direction (26 April 2012) [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...inquiries. This includes their forthcoming attendance at already scheduled hearings, as well as the contribution they respectively make to the reports we currently have in preparation. 12. In the same manner, the Director must take into account the responsibilities of Tribunal Unit staff and the implications it will have for the current work programme, when these staff are allocated to other priorities, including, in this instance, the urgent inquiries we see today. 13. The problem bef...

8. Wu v Manukau City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 65 [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...further application for building consent. The claimants state that these costs were caused by a request by Mr Marshall to change the type of cladding and that he caused delay which necessitated new consent applications. Mr Marshall’s Response [7] Mr Marshall’s only dispute with the amount claimed is that he believes that any costs arising from the change in cladding and the engineer’s costs should be met by the owner. [8] In October 2010 Kaizon was instructed...

9. BORA New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...distinction on the prohibited ground of disability (section 21(h) Human Rights Act). 9. The effect of this provision is to treat persons subject to a PPPR Act order differently from those who are not subject to an order. Bearing in mind the responsibilities and liabilities attached to the office of Commissioner, and the protections in the PPPR Act concerning the making of orders under that Act, we consider such a disqualification is justified in terms of section 5 Bill of Rights Act...

10. BORA Arbitration Amendment Bill [pdf, 358 KB]

    ...raises a number of issues regarding the right to freedom of expression contained in s 14 of BORA. Confidentiality of information 4. At present the Arbitration Act contains a rule relating to confidentiality of information. This was essentially in response to a finding of the High Court of Australia in Esso Australian Resources Limited v Ploughman (1995) 128 ALR 391 where the High Court declined to follow the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Dolling-Baker v Merrett [1991] 2 All...