Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2020] NZLCDT 18 (30 June 2020) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...suspended. Limited tolerance only is to be afforded to such conduct.”4 (emphasis ours) [11] In referring to particulars nine, six, seven and eight, His Honour referred to Mr Burcher having “clearly crossed the bright line …”.5 [12] Paragraph [101] is quoted in full because it has formed the basis for submissions from both counsel, the beginning and end of the paragraph being relied upon by Mr Hodge and the comments in the middle concerning how Mr Burcher might have avoided...

2. P Ltd v Q Ltd [2021] NZDT 1643 (8 October 2021) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...C] that the vehicle would not receive a WOF without first obtaining a LVV, as well as his photographs, which showing a level and what seemed to be a tyre extending past the mudguards, which he said indicated non-compliance with the NZTA standard at 10-1. 14. Despite this, on balance I am not satisfied that it was established that the tyres and fit out breached the NZTA standard and were not fit for purpose. I say this for reasons which include: a. No evidence was provided from the NZ...

3. People charged and convicted of breach of COVID-19 restrictions offences December 2020 [xlsx, 84 KB]

   ...total people 2020 2020 Total 641 100% Gender Female 138 22% Male 503 78% Unknown 0 0% Ethnicity European 301 47% Māori 309 48% Pacific Peoples 41 6% Asian 19 3% Other 22 3% Unknown 8 1% Age group (years) 19 years and under 55 9% 20-24 101 16% 25-29 141 22% 30-34 131 20% 35-39 84 13% 40-44 65 10% 45-49 32 5% 50-54 13 2% 55-59 9 1% 60-64 8 1% 65 years and over 2 <1% Unknown 0 0% 3a.People convicted by sentence Table 3a: Number of people convicted of breach of COV...

4. FF v WSC2 LCRO 23 / 2011 (27 September 2011) [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...6 [36] This question was addressed in Auckland District Law Society v The New Zealand Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and O HC Auckland, HC 237/94 and in 84/94, 27 April 1995, which considered the similar requirements of section 101(3)(a) of the Law Practitioners Act 1982. [37] In its decision, the Court criticised the Law Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal for paraphrasing words used in the Act. In its decision, the Tribunal had cited a passage from H (a law pr...

5. Appendix One to Cabinet Paper Reforming the Privacy Act 1993 [pdf, 378 KB]

   ...permit an agency to report any reasonably held suspicion or belief that an offence has been or may be committed, including any relevant information about that offence, to a public sector agency with law enforcement functions. Assists law and order. 101 Section 13(1)(n) should be amended to delete the word “computer”. Section 13 lists the Privacy Commissioner’s functions. Makes the Act technology neutral. 102.1 The technology-neutral privacy principles should be retained. Futu...

6. Canterbury Standards Committee v Sisson [2011] NZLCDT 16 [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...1982, Ms Sisson deducted the fees charged by her from the funds held for Ms H without first obtaining authority from Ms H to do so, and in circumstances where Ms H was entitled to have those costs met by legal aid. 4 7. In breach of Rule 1.01 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Barristers and Solicitors which then applied, Ms Sisson billed Ms H directly for legal work for Ms Sisson’s personal benefit in that Ms Sisson thereby avoided the Inland Revenue Department�...

7. Legal aid provider manual - cancellation of approvals - part 4 [pdf, 578 KB]

   ...Act that govern the cancellation process. Section Title 79 Performance review committee 82 Review of decisions of Secretary regarding approvals 84 Review Authority established 85 Function of Review Authority 86 Decisions of Review Authority 101 Interim restrictions may be imposed by Secretary 102 Sanctions that may be imposed by Secretary 103 Cancellation 109 Disclosure of privileged communications under section 92 or 96 The table below lists the regulations that govern Perfo...

8. New Zealand Law Society v Faleauto [2009] NZLCDT 19 [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...refused or failed to comply with the lawful requirement of the Auckland District Law Society or Complaints Committee No. 2 to provide specified documents, relating to the investigation of a complaint against him by Mr G S, for inspection under s.101(3)(d) Law Practitioners Act 1982. (“the S Charge”); 1.2 Between July 2005 and July 2007, in breach of Rule 11.03 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Barristers and Solicitors, he accepted instructions from a lay client, Mr P,...

9. People charged and convicted of offences June 2017 [xlsx, 449 KB]

   ...division) 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010 2010/2011 2011/2012 2012/2013 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 01: Homicide and related offences 88 94 125 121 83 81 144 136 147 128 02: Acts intended to cause injury 17,113 18,762 19,484 18,436 17,381 16,551 14,101 13,654 15,279 15,359 03: Sexual assault and related offences 1,728 2,053 2,172 2,150 1,914 2,474 2,521 2,646 2,392 2,135 04: Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons 15,650 14,597 13,532 11,348 10,554 9,664 8,418 7,933 8,587...

10. Trustees of Tuhoe v Nikora - Te Uru Taumatua (2021) 260 Waiariki MB 103 (260 WAR 103) [pdf, 236 KB]

    ...TTK 194); Nicholls v Nicholls – Part Papaaroha 6B [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 515 (2013 APPEAL 515); Nicholls v Nicholls – WT Nicholls Trust (2013) 55 Waikato Maniapoto MB 288 (55 WMN 288); Taueki – Horowhenua 11 (2012) 279 Aotea MB 101 (279 AOT 101); Tito v Tito – Mangakahia 2B2 No 2A1A [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 527 (2011 APPEAL 527); and Proprietors of Maraeroa C v New Zealand Forest Products Ltd (2007) 121 Waikato MB 258 (121 W 258). 260 Waiariki MB 105...