Search Results

1. LCRO 24/2023 RD v KE and PS (5 September 2023) [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...provided by Mr KE’s firm, [Law firm C]. He also sought compensation for the expense he had incurred in trying unsuccessfully to get access to the file information. [50] Mr KE and Ms PS were invited to respond to the complaint. In his initial response in October 2021 explaining the circumstances of WD’s uplifting of the files he held, Mr KE recorded that: Up until this time we had navigated a confusing path in regard to old files and the financial involvement of overseas relatives...

2. Waitangi Tribunal Te Aroha Maunga Settlement process report [pdf, 2.8 MB]

   ...it also seems to us that this difference emerged and crystallised in the way it did due to a lack of clarity about how the interests of each iwi would be negotiated and recognised within the context of collective redress . The respective roles and responsibilities of the Crown and the Collective in this regard were not clear . We understand that the Hauraki settlement is imminent . While we do not find a Treaty breach, and consequently make no recommendations, we are left with considerable...

3. NZ Core document [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ..................................................................... 8 4. Total fertility rate, 1978–2008 ....................................................................................................... 9 5. Religious affiliation (total response) by area of usual residence (urban and rural area indicator) for the 2006 Census usually resident population count ................................................. 10 6. Sex of parent for one-parent with child(ren) families in priva...

4. [2024] NZEnvC 050 The Warehouse Limited v Auckland Transport [pdf, 16 MB]

   ...[12] The substantive changes can be summarised as follows: (a) A process has been included to require AT to consult the Appellants on certain draft management plans, adopt their recommendations where practicable and to provide information (and a response) to the feedback received to the Council when the plans are submitted for certification; 5 (b) AT is required to cease construction work in the vicinity of The Warehouse Pakuranga if AT is not complying with the conditions rel...

5. VUW v Accident Compensation Corporation & QRS (Jurisdiction Objection) [2014] NZHRRT 26 [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...that the objection is based on a misinterpretation of s 83 of the Act. [4.2] As to the relationship between ACC and the second defendant, the Commissioner has foreshadowed an argument that by virtue of the operation of s 126(2) of the Act ACC is responsible for the actions of the second defendant as well as for its own actions. [5] An important part of ACC’s case that it is not responsible for anything done (or omitted to be done) by the second defendant. 3 [6] In a teleconfe...

6. R v D LCRO 56 / 2009 (19 June 2009) - Rehearing Decision [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...procedural errors. He sought a rehearing of the review. 2 [5] The LCRO treated the letter as an application for a rehearing of the review. A copy of Mr XX’s letter was forwarded to the review applicant who was invited to respond. The response was subsequently forwarded to Mr XX who was invited to forward any additional information. [6] The following is a decision on Mr XX’s application for a rehearing of the review and addresses the various grounds that he raised...

7. AP v Standards Committee X LCRO 317 / 2012 (15 August 2013) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...misappropriated money which was given to her in a position of trust regardless of whether she was acting as a lawyer as such or not”. 1 [4] The Standards Committee resolved to inquire further. The complaint was notified to the Applicant who, in her response of 19 July 2012, queried whether the [Standards Committee X] had jurisdiction to decide the matter. She nevertheless offered a statement “under duress” acknowledging that the complaint was a serious allegation. The Ap...

8. BU v DG LCRO 276 / 2011 (6 November 2013) - Penalty Decision [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...known better. However, Mr DG requested guidance early on around the extent to which practitioners should involve themselves in negotiations over another lawyer’s outstanding account which is the subject of a complaint to the NZLS.2 That was a responsible approach to take, and paragraphs 53 and 54 of the substantive decision respond to that enquiry. [5] A number of experienced professional colleagues have provided testimonials in support of Mr DG. Those colleagues refer to Mr DG...

9. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 3 v Sullivan [2016] NZLCDT 13 [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...considerable concern about the following matters which arose in the respondent’s answers to questions from the Tribunal: (a) Mr Sullivan revealed that he was going into his former law firm’s office one day a week. (b) When asked whether he accepted responsibility or was still in denial of the findings of Heath J, Mr Sullivan’s response was clear that he has not 7 accepted that finding. At para [30] on page 12 of his sentencing notes of 12 December 2014, Heath J said:...

10. Nisha v Devi [2011] NZIACDT 26 (5 September 2011) [pdf, 85 KB]

    ...certificate have not been returned. [8] The Adviser provided submissions on the appropriate sanctions. In large part they effectively challenged the finding against her in the decision. The key elements in the submission were: [8.1] The Adviser delegated responsibility to staff. [8.2] A payment of $700 related to initial work in the Fiji office regarding to a NZQA assessment. [8.3] The Adviser was not responsible for failing to progress the application to the Teachers Council as the...