Search Results

1. ZL v OL LCRO 51/2014 (2 September 2016) [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...were laid to the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS), first by Mr [ZA], then by Mr [YB] (complaint file 6952), then again by Mr [ZA], each articulating concerns about the other’s professional conduct. [6] The complaints processes unfolded, and in response to a notice of hearing, issued by the Standards Committee in complaint file 6952, Mr [OL] provided the Complaints Service with a two-page submission dated 30 September 2013 on behalf of Mr [YB] (Mr [OL]’s submission). Mr [OL] sub...

2. LCRO 117/2018 VR v BJ (30 August 2019) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...said he provided this information to Ms BJ before she initiated the High Court action against his company to recover the debt. 2 Mr VR, Complaint (25 May 2018). 3 Rule 2.3, footnote 1. 4 Response [19] Following an initial assessment by the LCS, Mr VR’s complaint was dealt with through its Early Intervention Process which I refer to later in this decision. Standards Committee decision [20] The Standards Committee delivered...

3. LCRO 6/2022 ZED Limited v RK (21 February 2022) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...of the invoices issued by Mr RK. Therefore, together with the court-ordered costs it had paid out a total amount of $44,215.50 which Mr YP described as “a massive and a not foretold result.” 2 ZED Ltd v RK [XXXX] NZLCRO XXX. 3 Response [10] Mr RK’s response to the fees complaint was: (a) The legal work included an application for an injunction, an application to prevent a caveat from lapsing as well as the judicial review proceedings. All steps were “vehemen...

4. LCRO 106/2021 TH v QA (17 August 2021) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...view as to outcome. [25] If the Committee’s preliminary view is that the complaint appears to lack substance, a Legal Standards Officer (LSO) will contact the respondent lawyer and inform them of the Committee’s preliminary view, inviting a response from the lawyer. [26] Any response is included in a file note prepared by the LSO and provided to the Committee, which then completes its inquiry into the complaint. [27] On 28 June 2021, the LSO spoke to Mr QA by telephone and ad...

5. [2023] NZREADT 9 – Complaints Assessment Committee 2108 v O’Brien & Wildman (28 April 2023) [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...to his professional obligations. [16] It is submitted Ms Wildman’s conduct was low-moderate in terms of seriousness, having regard to: 1. The breach of three rules, being a more limited involvement in the transaction. 2. As the agent responsible for the transaction and a director of Jervois, she ought to have been cognisant of the implications of not entering into a conjunctional sale arrangement and of paying the commission to Mr O’Brien personally. Given her experienc...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 91 A1 Communication Ltd v A Labour Inspector of Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...premises and endeavoured to speak to somebody there. As there was no one present at the time, the Labour Inspectors left a letter advising of their visit, which included a request that A1 provide an employee list. On 17 July 2018, after there was no response from A1, a Labour Inspector couriered a Notice to Produce Records to A1’s registered office. That notice required A1 to provide all past and present employee employment records for employees employed between 17 July 2016 an...

7. Wilton TRI-2021-100-002 Procedural Order 26 [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...that from 14 October 2022, the fourth respondent had sufficient information to determine the merits of its claim against the sixth respondent. In particular, the sixth respondent says the fourth respondent had received the sixth respondent’s response to the claim along with a ‘will say’ statement from Dr Jacobs. On 6 March 2023, the sixth respondent’s counsel invited the fourth respondent to withdraw its claim. However, on 7 March 2023, the fourth respondent’s counsel d...

8. FAQS

   ...Rights Act vet?   The Bill of Rights Act vetting process What is Bill of Rights Act vetting? How much time do I need to allow for a Bill to be vetted? How do I arrange vetting? The Bill is progressing urgently – what do I do about vetting? Who is responsible for arranging vetting and providing the draft Bill? The Bill is just making changes consistent with existing legislation – does it need to be vetted? What can I expect during vetting? When will I find out if the Bill is consisten...

   Located in:

   1. Justice sector & policy >
   2. Constitutional issues & human rights >
   3. The Bill of Rights Act

9. Memorandum of Counsel in response to Court Minute on conditions 24 August 2018 [pdf, 631 KB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND of the Resource Management Act 1991 of the direct referral of applications for resource consents for the necessary infrastructure and related activities associated with holding the America's Cup in Auckland PANUKU DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Applicant ENV- 2018- AKL- 000078 AUCKLAND COUNCIL Regulatory Authority MINUTE OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT re CROWN'S INFORMATION ON CE

10. Electoral-Commission-Website-Notes-for-Applicants-22.10.21.docx [docx, 17 KB]

    ...Commission under section 4 of the Electoral Act 1993. The Commission is an independent Crown Entity and has a constitutionally important role — Te Kaitiaki Take Kōwhiri — as guardian of the Parliamentary electoral system. The Electoral Commission is responsible for maintaining the electoral rolls, administering parliamentary elections, and promoting participation in parliamentary democracy. This includes promoting compliance with electoral laws, the registration of political parties, the...