Search Results

1. LCRO 20/2016 LC and CM v JP (19 March 2019) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...preferred over Mr JP’s. Mr LC refutes Mr MJ’s evidence and maintains his offence at Mr JP’s form of address. [18] The Committee considered Mr JP’s conduct in the context of s 110 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) and rr 10, 10.1 and 3.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules), noting the conflict between Mr JP’s evidence and that of the applicants. Focussing on the fact that the applicants had chosen...

2. [2012] NZEmpC 102 Tinkler v Fugro PMS Pty Ltd & Pavement Management Service [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...6 For difficulties with the enforcement of non mediator-signed settlements under the Act see Wade v Hume Pack-N-Cool Ltd [2012] NZEmpC 64 at [14]. 7 See, for example, Shaffer v Gisborne High School Board of Trustees [1995] 1 ERNZ 94 (CA) at 101-102. misrepresentation, repudiation or breach. The Explanatory Note to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill stated that this amendment was made to give: 8 greater certainty of outcome in mediated settlements … [ensuring] … tha...

3. [2024] NZLCDT 45 Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Jindal (24 December 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...12(c) LCA? Preliminary issue – amendment of charge [7] At the end of the hearing Mr Tantrum noted that there was an omission in the charging document of one of the Rules which were said to be applicable to the respondent’s conduct. Rules 10.1 and 10.3(c) were pleaded but Mr Tantrum sought to add r 10.2 as a further relevant provision. [8] Mr Jindal was provided with the opportunity to file submissions. He did not point to any prejudice addressing the substantive issue of t...

4. People charged and convicted of methamphetamine offences December 2019 [xlsx, 374 KB]

   ...charge outcome, 2010 - 2019 For more information on how to interpret these figures, please read the definitions and data notes Back to contents page Example interpretation: In 2019, the majority of charges (64%; 4,920 charges) were convicted and 1% (101 charges) had an 'other proved' outcome (eg Youth Court proved, discharge without conviction, Youth Court discharge, and adult diversion). Over a third of charges (35%; 2,700 charges) were 'not proved' (the person was found...

5. People charged and convicted of drug offences June 2018 [xlsx, 710 KB]

   ...Other opiates Other proved 5 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 Other opiates Not proved 25 12 19 20 23 23 7 8 10 2 Other opiates Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other opiates Total 67 37 51 60 43 42 28 32 30 9 Stimulants and depressants Convicted 97 127 122 136 120 93 93 101 95 105 Stimulants and depressants Other proved 6 8 12 7 9 7 9 10 1 6 Stimulants and depressants Not proved 69 82 65 57 149 79 74 44 44 37 Stimulants and depressants Other 1 0 0 0 1 0 16 0 0 0 Stimulants and depressants Total 173 217 199...

6. River Oaks Farm Ltd & Ors as Trustees of Ingodwe Trust v Olsson [pdf, 136 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2008-101-000052 BETWEEN RIVER OAKS FARM LIMITED & C & A M THURNELL & L HORNE AS TRUSTEES OF INGODWE TRUST Claimant AND TIMOTHY OLSSON, CHARLOTTE OLSSON & JOHN CRONIN AS TRUSTEES OF THE PICOLLO TRUST First Respondent AND TIMOTHY OLSSON Second Respondent AND DENTON PERRY Third Respondent AND KENT JARMAN Fourth Respondent AND WARWICK SWEETMAN Fifth Respondent AND MAXI HOLDINGS LIMITED Sixth R...

7. LCRO 097/2023 RQ and EP v OM (14 February 2024) [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...precluded from making a complaint about standard of the respondent’s professional conduct generally, in my view. In many if not most instances of a complaint being made by a complainant who is not the client 12 Rule 6 of the Rules. 13 Rule 10.1 of the Rules. 19 and not a person with responsibilities relating to administration of justice, the Committee or the LCRO has the power to decide to take no further action on the grounds that the complainant does not have a sufficient...

8. Tweeddale v Pearson [pdf, 405 KB]

   WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL CLAIM NO: TRI-2008-101-000067 BETWEEN CONCHITA TWEEDDALE Claimant AND MICHAEL PEARSON First Respondent AND KAREN TUCKER Second Respondent AND PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL Third Respondent AND PAUL HUMPHRIES Fourth Respondent AND STEVEN HARLEY Fifth Respondent AND SARAH SMITH and BARRY NIX trading as BARRAKUDA DESIGNS Sixth Respondent Hearing: 16 & 17 September 2009 Appearan...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hart [2012] NZLCDT 20 [pdf, 455 KB]

   ...request was met with what is referred to as a “final extension” until 10 October 2008. [31] When Mr Hart or his counsel failed to respond or provide the file by 10 October, counsel was notified on 6 November 2008 of a resolution pursuant to s 101(3)(d) and (e) LPA requiring production of the file. [32] The response to this, in a letter dated 18 November 2008, was the advice of Mr Hart’s counsel that Mr Hart had “... been working on a detailed response but I 8 h...

10. People charged and convicted of driving under the influence offences December 2017 [xlsx, 852 KB]

    ...Auckland Waitakere Other proved 28 19 20 9 12 11 14 11 8 3 North Auckland Waitakere Not proved 150 142 123 61 73 66 83 35 41 40 North Auckland Waitakere Other 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 North Auckland Waitakere Total 1,494 1,715 1,546 1,206 1,132 1,193 1,101 842 852 768 North Auckland Warkworth Convicted 182 107 99 83 96 7 - - - - North Auckland Warkworth Other proved 1 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - North Auckland Warkworth Not proved 24 7 8 4 1 1 - - - - North Auckland Warkworth Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -...