Search Results

1. Hodgson v CAC 10037 & Arnold [2011] NZREADT 3 [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...Supreme Court in Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stitchting Lodgestar2. According to the judgment, a Court considering an appeal from a lower Court is not obliged to defer to the reasons of the decision appealed from. Rather, the appellate Court has the responsibility of arriving at its own assessment of the merits of the case [paragraph [16]: [16] Those exercising general rights of appeal are entitled to judgment in accordance with the opinion of the appellate court, even where the...

2. GLCADS v Bishop of Auckland (Camera In-Court Application by TVNZ) [2013] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...privacy interests outweigh the public interest in publishing or broadcasting that witness’s evidence, given the likely significance of the evidence (g) any other relevant matters. [15] Applying these Principles by analogy to the present application, responsible counsel advises that the filming of witnesses during their evidence will create the risk that one or more would feel inhibited from providing evidence with full candour. Indeed protection for one witness might be sought. As M...

3. Nelson Standards Committee v Dallison [2011] NZLCDT 40 [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...vehicle of Peter and Mary Dallison which information I hope you will treat confidentially, as will we”. [4] This was the first occasion on which the client’s were advised that the practitioner had an interest in the proposed funding. Mr D’s response to that was to telephone the practitioner and ask again for him to seek an extension of the settlement date to allow them to get independent advice given the conflict of interest that Mr D perceived the practitioner had....

4. ENVC Matiatia expert witness ecology conditions 2014 [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...location of hull cleaning activities and other equipment used in the CMA; (iii) Contacts in the event the users of the Marina need assistance and/or advice regarding fouling organisms; (iv) A policy regarding cooperation with the statutory agencies responsible for surveillance, surveys and control of unwanted or risk species; (v) A rule which facilitates exclusion from the Marina of vessels or equipment which become known to harbour unwanted or risk species until such vessels/equipme...

5. GJ v TW LCRO 205 / 2011 (14 December 2011) [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...written. Overall the discussion led to his better understanding about the reasons why he found himself being required to answer a complaint in the disciplinary forum. The review hearing provided an opportunity to address the nature of professional responsibilities and I am satisfied that the discussion provided a helpful insight into these matters. [15] However, lawyers are expected to be familiar with their professional obligations and although further information that aros...

6. Bedford v Luton LCRO 72 / 2009 (29 June 2009) - Penalty and Costs [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...this matter. Breach of Undertaking [12] Any breach of any undertaking is a very serious matter. In general where an undertaking is unconditional and the lawyer has failed to honour it that factor in itself is enough to warrant a disciplinary response: Bentley v Gaisford [1997] QB 627 (CA) at p 648 per Henry LJ); Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Bhanabhai [2007] 2 NZLR 478 para [50] per William Young P. The English Court of Appeal has stated that failure to implement a solicitor...

7. Q v I LCRO 41 / 2009 (2 June 2009) [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...v C [2008] 3 NZLR 105). Conduct unbecoming could relate to conduct both in the capacity as a lawyer, 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). [8] One of the questions which is relevant to whether those standards were breached is whether there has been a breach of the applicable rules of...

8. Mok v Boyd [2011] NZWHT Auckland 1 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...merit and the Tribunal‟s findings establish that Mr Boyd gave false evidence in his affidavit of 14 May 2010 and at hearing. Mr Tibbits has not claimed costs against the claimants as he accepts that they had no personal knowledge of who was responsible for the construction defects on the property and were dependant on Mr Boyd‟s identification of the relevant parties. [6] It is relevant to Mr Tibbits‟ costs application that he applied for removal on 26 January 2010, befor...

9. IPT Practice Note 5 Publication of decisions [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...be the Research Copy released for publication. [Member’s name] Member 7. THE PROCESS OF DEPERSONALISATION, ABRIDGEMENT AND PROHIBITION FROM PUBLICATION [7.1] The form in which the research copy of a decision is published is the responsibility of the Tribunal. In particular, responsibility for compliance with section 151 is personal. For this reason, and because the content of decisions is solely a matter for the Tribunal, it does not normally seek the views of the pa...

10. Odlin Family Trust v Hurunui District Council [2013] NZWHT Auckland 3 [pdf, 121 KB]

    ...implemented. 4. This measure proved to be patently inadequate and the building was subject to serious leaks due to failure of the balcony cap and other unrecognized systemic construction faults. 5. The WSG assessor deemed that the HDC was partly responsible for the leaking home because the HDC conducted the inspections and identified the HDC as a party to the claim. [21] In his report the WHRS assessor identified the following defects as the cause of water penetration:...