Search Results

1. A v X LCRO 2 / 2008 (20 February 2009) [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...death of Complainant A’s mother. Decision [18] The application for review is upheld pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. The decision of the Auckland Standards Committee 2 is reversed. [19] It is also ordered, by consent, that the bill dated 25 September 2007 for $1743.76 is cancelled. Submissions on penalty and costs [20] Pursuant to 211(1)(b) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers this office may exercise any of the powers that could be exercised by a Sta...

2. LCRO 02/2008 A v X [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...death of Complainant A’s mother. Decision [18] The application for review is upheld pursuant to s 211(1)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. The decision of the Auckland Standards Committee 2 is reversed. [19] It is also ordered, by consent, that the bill dated 25 September 2007 for $1743.76 is cancelled. Submissions on penalty and costs [20] Pursuant to 211(1)(b) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers this office may exercise any of the powers that could be exercised by a Sta...

3. 2017 NZSSAA 067 (27 November 2017) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...contact with extended family on his mother’s side, other than his two older sisters. The appellant said that If she had not stepped in to care for her grandson, she may have been required to attend his funeral. [19] The appellant referred to media statements made by Paula Bennett, then Minister of Social Development, and the Ministry of Social Development’s Deputy Chief Executive, Debbie Power, in 2014. These statements indicated that the government would allow beneficiaries w...

4. LCRO 76/2013 OP v The Trust (21 July 2017) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...[27] The Committee considered the Trust was correct, and that Mr OP had deliberately misled Mr SJ. [28] Dishonesty is a very serious allegation. As the authors of Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility put it:4 The making of knowingly false statements, whether written or oral, by a lawyer to third parties, such as other lawyers, is prima facie professional misconduct. [29] A false statement undermines “a lawyer’s claim to the requisite integrity”.5 The authors of Ethics...

5. Peihopa v Peihopa - Kaikou H [2021] Maori Appellate Court MB 180 (2021 APPEAL 180) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...argument is a red herring, because it is oppressiveness for the appellant that is relevant, and no such oppression was argued before that Court. 2021 Māori Appellate Court MB 185 [11] Nor was oppressiveness argued at the hearing.16 The statement that comes closest to alleging oppression is counsel for the appellant submitting that “the prejudice to be suffered by the [appellant] should the injunction be granted, seriously, is very serious and would have implications for...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 218 Bay of Plenty District Health Board v CultureSafe New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...length of the delay. (3) Any prejudice or hardship to any other person. (4) The effect on the rights and liabilities of the parties. (5) Subsequent events. (6) The merits of the proposed challenge. [19] As has been noted previously,6 the statements in An Employee v An Employer must now be read in light of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Almond v Read.7 In that judgment, the Supreme Court emphasised that the ultimate question in such a case is what the interests of justice...

7. Stewart v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs on discontinuance of appeal) [2023] NZACC 108 [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...affidavits, was proposed to be called. (c) By email dated 11 August 2022, an affidavit of the appellant was filed, and this document appeared to be irregular and of no apparent relevance. (d) By Minute dated 25 August 2022, the Court directed (by consent) that the appellant’s submissions be filed and served by 23 November 2022. No submissions were filed or served by the appellant. After follow-up by the Registry on 27 September 2022, Ms Koloni stated that the affidavit from th...

8. Aitken v Laudermilk [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...• The second respondent, Mr Dai Jones, who designed the house; • The third respondent, Mr Brent Anthony Rule, the builder; • The fourth respondent, Marlborough District Council, was the territorial local authority responsible for issuing consent and code compliance certificates for the house; • The fifth respondent is Contour Roofing (Nelson) Ltd; and • The ninth respondent is Mr Gary Fyfe. 5 [5] On 31 October 2008 and 9 December 2008 I held preliminary conferen...

9. Parlane v REAA Registrar [2013] NZREADT 94 [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...Shore City Council [2005] 2 NZLR 597 where the Court considered s.93 of the Resource Management Act 1991 which required the Council to be satisfied it had received adequate information to make a decision about notification of applications for resource consent. Section 94(2) of the Resource Management Act 1991 provided that the Council was not required to notify an application if, among other things, it was “satisfied that the adverse effect on the environment of the activity for which...

10. [2006] NZEmpC CC 14/06 Keys v Flighty Centre (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 23 KB]

    ...Axiom Rolle. In our substantive decision on the strike out application we had determined that there was a right of challenge and the plaintiff duly applied for leave to extend the time in which to file a challenge. That application was granted by consent on 28 July 2005 (file number CRC 19/05), but the challenge was stayed until the release of the full Court’s decision in the Axiom Rolle case. Leave was given to the first defendant to file and serve its statement of defence 30...