Search Results

1. OIA-121649.pdf [pdf, 743 KB]

   ...available on the Ministry’s website at: Security-Screening-Exemption-for-Lawyers.pdf. s9(2)(a) s9(2)(a) https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/Security-Screening-Exemption-for-Lawyers.pdf Please note that this response, with your personal details removed, may be published on the Ministry’s website at: Official Information Act responses | New Zealand Ministry of Justice If you are not satisfied with this response, you have the right to make a com...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 12 Unite Union Inc and Sherman v SkyCity Auckland Ltd [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...after the industrial action over the Chinese New Year period has ceased, the parties would be able to get back to the bargaining table and make some real progress perhaps with the assistance of a mediator. [17] Ms Walker considered the range of responses open to SkyCity given the current escalation of strike action. She considered the possibility of lockouts and, because this is a significant step for an employer to take given the message it would send to the workforce, this wa...

3. ENVC Matiatia party corresp WMLDec14 draft conditions of consent [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...compliance with the conditions of this consent. This section shall provide details on the following: (a) Name, qualifications, relevant experience and contact details of an appropriately qualified and experienced project Team Leader, who shall be responsible for overseeing compliance with the CMP. (b) Names, qualifications, relevant experience, and methods for contact of principal staff employed, along with details of their roles and responsibilities. (c) Methods and systems to inform...

4. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hart [2012] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...s 257 in respect of the costs of the Tribunal. 1 Auckland Standards Committee No. 1 v Hart [2012] NZLCDT 20. 4 [6] In his submissions Mr Collins referred to “... a pattern of culpable irresponsibility to the detriment of clients, the institutions of his profession, and the public.” He submitted that the cumulative effect demonstrated that Mr Hart was not fit to remain in practice. [7] Mr Collins went on to detail the ag...

5. McDonald v Peters [2012] NZWHT Auckland 39 [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...Mr Peters to do all plastering work on the building. [6] Carlton James Richards, the fifth respondent, was the builder contracted to do part of the building work and supervise Mr Peters when he was providing labour. Mr Richards filed a response, sought removal and then took no further part in the proceedings. Page 4 [7] The seventh respondent Graeme Scott was the building contractor engaged by Building Approvals and Mr Hislop to replace the parapet/gable roof ends...

6. Delamere v Jiang [2017] NZIACDT 1 (17 February 2017) [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...material supplied through his counsel. [33.2] While he accepted that as the director, he had the power to control the company’s response to the Authority’s statutory requirement, he had entirely forgotten he was a director. Accordingly, his responses regarding his lack of capacity to do anything were genuine. He accepted he had personally signed consent to be a director on 25 July 2014, less than two years before his email to the Authority of 4 May 2016 stating “I do not b...

7. LCRO 183/2020 DX v SQ (26 February 2021) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...number of banks, and other institutions, and arranged a meeting with the Public Trust on [date] to which she invited Mr DX and MX. [13] On [date], Mr NF, a legal executive with [law firm B] informed (by letter) Ms SQ about the 2018 will. In response to Ms SQ’s request (by letter) on [date], that day Mr NF stated (by letter) YX and RX were “not entitled to see” the [month] 2018 will. [14] Mr MG, Mr NF’s colleague, confirmed (by email) to Ms SQ on [day, month] that Mr DX...

8. LCRO 239/2016 RY v P AN and T AN (25 September 2018) [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...$41,250 (the deposit) be held by an independent stakeholder until then. [5] By email the following morning, 4 July 2013, Mrs AN informed the builder of Mr RY’s recommendation and forwarded Mr RY’s 3 July advice letter to the builder. In response that morning the builder proposed, in effect, that when Mr and Mrs AN confirmed (conditions satisfied) the purchase agreement, so long as the builder then owned the property, the deposit could be paid to the builder. The builder stated...

9. LCRO 123/2019 & 124/2019 MC v QK and QK v MC (3 March 2020) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...“… are negotiating and significant terms remain to be resolved, it would be more or less impossible for a lawyer to act for both parties … an advantage acquired by one client will often result in a detriment to the other client.”8 The responsibility for making that determination rests with the lawyer concerned.9 4 Sections 3(1) and 4 of the Act. But see s 4(d). 5 Duncan Webb, Kathryn Dalziel and Kerry Cook Ethics, Professiona...

10. LCRO 88/2018 MC v OT (24 December 2018) [pdf, 225 KB]

    ...[22] If the Committee’s preliminary view is that the complaint lacks substance, a Legal Standards Officer (LSO) will make contact with the respondent lawyer and inform the lawyer of the Committee’s position. The lawyer is invited to provide a response if they wish, but is not compelled to do so. [23] The Committee delivered its decision on 24 April 2018 and determined, pursuant to s 138(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act), that no further action on the compl...