Search Results

1. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v TCLE-A-T6518151 [2013] NZCOP 12 [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...This Application, together with detailed submissions and an authorisation of agent form, was filed with the Tribunal on 23 November 2012. The Applicant sought an award of $2,175.40, including a deterrent sum of $1,000. [13] On 13 December 2012, a Response was filed with the Tribunal. The following excerpts demonstrate the Respondent’s position: “On receipt of the Detection Notice we thoroughly checked all personal computers in our house…for the file in question. As the file i...

2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - concluding observations 5th report [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...the context of the historical Treaty claims settlement process are duly taken into account. 21. The State party should widely disseminate the Covenant, the two Optional Protocols to the Covenant, the text of the fifth periodic report, the written responses it has provided in response to the list of issues drawn up by the Committee, and the present concluding observations so as to increase awareness among the judicial, legislative and administrative authorities, civil society and non-gov...

3. Wellington Standards Committee v McGuire [2013] NZLCDT 41 [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...contribution to costs. That Mr McGuire will also face censure is entirely of his own making, as his attitude to his professional obligations, as demonstrated by the content of his submissions on costs, shows that he does not yet fully accept his responsibility for his conduct the subject of the charge to which he pleaded guilty. Censure is needed to reinforce that his conduct has not been acceptable. When Mr McGuire fully accepts that and moves on from any sense that he has been...

4. CAC306 v Murphy & Anor [2015] NZREADT 88 [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...contaminated by methamphetamine operations, the penalty should be of a nature and level that deters other licensees from similar conduct; and the penalty which best suits this objective is a fine. Accordingly, the Committee submits that the appropriate response to Mr Murphy’s conduct is a fine in the range of $5000-$6000. Re Property Link Groups Ltd [10] Ms Paterson notes that Mr Murphy and his wife, Elizabeth Murphy, are the two directors of the second defendant, Property Link Group...

5. Tranent v Abingdon LCRO 47 / 2009 (22 May 2009) [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...[2008] 3 NZLR 105). Conduct unbecoming could relate to conduct both in the capacity as a lawyer, 5 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). [15] The Standards Committee had the offending letters available to them and concluded that nothing in the correspondence could be regarded as un...

6. GN v TS LCRO 71 / 2011 (24 November 2011) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...included in the original proceeding. It seems that the Judge had good reason upon which to form the view that much of the Applicant‟s dissatisfaction arose from the earlier proceedings. However, the parameters of the earlier litigation was not the responsibility of the Practitioner and I see no basis for disciplinary issues arising for the Practitioner. [28] The Practitioner represented ACQ and its employee, M, and it was his role to represent his clients in answer to the Appl...

7. Penzance v Runcorn LCRO 170 / 2009 (10 February 2010) [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...she should act in this matter and that she followed Mr XX’ guidance. Ms Runcorn was only admitted in 2008 and acted appropriately in seeking guidance from a more senior practitioner. However, each practitioner is individually and personally responsible for his or her own professional conduct. In so far as Ms Runcorn acted against Mr Penzance when the firm held confidential information in respect of Mr Penzance it is her conduct that is under scrutiny. [22] I have found that the S...

8. Wallasey v Bala LCRO 86 / 2009 (14 September 2009) [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...Mr XX. On 19 December Mr XX forwarded this letter on to the practitioner. That day he also wrote to the applicant‟s mother to inform her he had done so. On 21 December 2007 the practitioner wrote directly to the applicant‟s mother in response to her letter, and prefaced his letter with his understanding that she was not at the time legally represented. He sent a copy of the letter to Mr XX as a courtesy because of his prior involvement. [15] The applicant contended that...

9. Hooker Family Trust v R & B Plastering Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 41 [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...acknowledged that some liability was likely to arise. In her opening submissions on behalf of the claimants, Ms Taylor submitted that this was a case where the assumption of control on site by the director of a company gave rise to a personal responsibility. That was not disputed. However because (to put it briefly) Mr Schnauer said that Mr Brown sought to minimise any award, and the claimants on the other hand sought to maximise it, the Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Hooker a...

10. BORA Building Bill - Preliminary [pdf, 55 KB]

    ...is an accurate reproduction of the advice provided to the Attorney-General, neither the Ministry of Justice nor the Crown Law Office accepts any liability for any errors or omissions. Footnotes 1. The Chief Executive of the Ministry that is responsible for the administration of the Bill 2. Clause 42 (Special powers of chief executive for monitoring performance of functions under this Act); clause 43 (Limits on power to enter a building); clause 44 (Chief executive must supply wa...