Search Results

1. LCRO 193/2017 AA v BB and CC (29 November 2019) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...procedural issue raised by Mr AA arising from the late filing of the material. 8 [50] Mr BB provided a response to both Mr AA’s initial review application, and to the material filed by Mr AA prior to the hearing. Mr BB confirmed that his responses were filed on behalf of himself and Ms CC. [51] In response to the initial review application, Mr BB submitted that: (a) Mr AA had, sometime after being made redundant, attempted to belatedly advance accusation that he had been un...

2. 02.-Evidence-of-Ms-Dianne-Rump-Muaupoko-Tribal-Authority64019775.1.PDF [PDF, 321 KB]

   ...framework for the Project to deliver outcomes for iwi and the community 11 The locations include Pukehou, Whakahoro, Ohau and Wai-Mārie/Arapaepae Page 19 69. In particular, previously our people have felt as though their reactions and responses to exclusions were viewed as contrary and inconvenient. In turn MTA – as the mandated representative entity – are held responsible by our people for ensuring the wrongs that have happened to us up to this point are not perpetu...

3. LCRO 68/2024 GRA v ZTV (1 September 2025) [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...[XXXX] NZHC XXX. 10 RA complaint (15 August 2019) complaint details. 11 Ibid. 12 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 5 [24] Ms RA has asked to be reimbursed for Mr ZTV’s costs. Mr ZTV’s response [25] Mr ZTV explains his reasons for advancing the claim pursuant to the Family Protection Act. He also provided details of his family’s health difficulties, which affected his abilities to maintain contact with his clients. [26...

4. AM v ZM LCRO 48 / 2010 (25 February 2011) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...breached Rule 13.1 of the Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules 2008 which states: A lawyer has an absolute duty of honesty to the court and must not mislead or deceive the court. [4] The Standards Committee had summarised the Practitioner‟s response to the complaint, noting that the Applicant was represented by her own counsel throughout, and that there had been a right of reply in the Courtroom to the submissions. The Committee recorded that the Practitioner‟s response had...

5. LCRO 174/2014 VS v DH [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...16(1); and (e) Mrs CN “contested the partitioning of the land” necessitating a court action by Mr K, Mr M and Mrs EL even though Mrs L’s share in the [Town] land had been transferred by Mrs CN to Mr K, Mr M and Mrs EL. Mr DH’s response [15] In response, Mr DH stated, by letter dated 10 April 2014 to the Law Society, that: 1 EL v CN [2013] NZHC 3190. 4 (a) his professional duties were owed to his client, Mrs C...

6. COVID-19 Response (Further Management Measures) Legislation Bill – Ministry of Justice [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...amendments would last until two years after the date when the COVID-19 emergency period ends and have retrospective application, covering persons to whom the new provisions would apply back to 25 March 2020. 27. The new provisions apply to ‘COVID-19 response workers. These are defined under new s 30JD as persons entitled to parental leave, who have agreed with their employer to temporarily return to work (or are self-employed and wish to return to work), and whose role cannot re...

7. LCRO 78/2020 NS v GL (29 June 2021) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...had obtained the protection order. [6] He describes Ms GL’s conduct as “lack[ing] professional advice, guidance and direction…”.6 He says that “she would have known the risks and legal ramifications of ignoring their requests for a response regarding staying off the property”.7 Ms GL’s response [7] Ms GL engaged Mr RK (at the relevant time, a partner in [AB Law]) to respond to the complaint. He first recounts the events giving rise to Mr WB’s letter of 8 May....

8. Auckland Standards Committee 5 and Southland Standards Committee v Taia [2022] NZLCDT 17 (9 June 2022) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...address anything of any real nature.” [14] Since then, Mr Taia has taken no steps to address the underlying deficiencies in the three transactions queried by LINZ in February 2015. In the seven years subsequent to those queries, Mr Taia’s rare responses consisted solely of attempts to postpone resolution. [15] This charge is advanced as misconduct under s 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Act. Clearly, the conduct occurred while providing regulated services. We agree with Mr McCaughan...

9. LCRO 186/2022 DV v AW (30 October 2023) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...Standards Committee to have occurred, being rules 3, 9, 9.9, and 9.10(d) and (f) were matters for which Dr FN as principal had responsibility and exercised authority and were not matters for which Mr DV as an employee could or did control. Mr AW’s response [63] Mr XL responded on behalf of Mr AW. He advised that Mr AW supported the Committee’s determination, but did not wish to incur further costs by actively participating in the review. Nature and scope of review [64] The...

10. Recommendations recap - issue 4 [pdf, 832 KB]

    ...recommendations made by the DoL that were directed at C&R Logging Ltd, the deceased’s employer. These were as follows. • Prior to the commencement of operations C&R Logging Ltd shall clearly identify the head breaker-out and his responsibilities on a daily basis. This includes the responsibilities for giving the primary signals to the hauler and responsibility for setting the safe distance for other breaker-outs to adhere to. • C&R Logging Ltd shall, at pre-har...