Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Ram [2011] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...payable by the New Zealand Law Society, were also to be reimbursed to the Law Society by Mr Ram. [15] The Tribunal censured Mr Ram, noting that the applicable restrictions on commencing practise on his own account were designed to ensure public protection and to preserve public confidence in the legal profession, key elements of the statutory purposes of the disciplinary regime under LCA. The Tribunal noted that Mr Ram had undertaken various mandates for persons he considered, incorrect...

2. BORA Business Law Reform Bill [pdf, 392 KB]

   ...the provision falls to be justified under section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. 20. The different treatment of large companies is retained because these companies have a significant effect on the New Zealand economy. The provision is intended to protect New Zealand interests which could be supplanted by the broader interests of the company. This can be considered a significant and important objective. 21. The additional reporting requirements are intended protect New Zealand interests...

3. Mohammadalibeigy v Yap [2015] NZIACDT 64 (25 May 2015) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned. [8] When imposing sanctions those statutory purposes require consideration of at least four factors which may materially bear upon maintaining appropriate standards of conduct: [8.1] Protecting the public: Section 3 of the Act states “The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice ...” [8.2] Demanding minimum standards of conduct: Dentice v Valuers Registration...

4. BORA Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...free from unreasonable search and seizure, it is unnecessary to carry out a further analysis under s 5. If a search or seizure is unreasonable it cannot be justified. [4] • The Court of Appeal has said that the “touchstone” of s 21 is the protection of reasonable expectations of privacy: [5] • The main aim of s 21 of the Bill of Rights is to protect privacy interests. It is only where a person's reasonable expectations of privacy have been breached that a personal re...

5. Wellington Standards Committee v Lester [2015] NZLCDT 23 [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...costs. [6] The applicant submitted that the aggravating features of the respondent’s conduct in respect of the charge of misconduct were: (a) Her admission of a reckless breach of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, being Rules 3, 3.2, 3.3, 5.11, 7.1, 7.2, 10, 11, 11.1 and 13.3. (b) The conduct, while not deliberately dishonest, exhibited a high degree of recklessness in that: (i) For 17 months she led her client to believe that the...

6. [2024] NZEnvC 130 Yzendoorn v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...and expenses incurred in the course of the appeal. Section 285 confers a broad discretion. The Environment Court Practice Note 2023 sets out 5 Joint Memorandum of Counsel dated 5 October 2023. 6 Commerce Commission v Southern Cross Medical Care Society [2004] 1 NZLR 491, at [12]. 7 McMahon v Southland Regional Council C64/2004, at [25]. 8 Ballantyne v Papakura District Council A054/08. 5 guidelines in relation to costs, however it does not create an inflexible rule or practic...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 108 Milne v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...to pay) and, if so, how the Court’s discretion should be exercised under r 5.45(2). [7] In exercising its broad discretion the Court must have regard to the overall justice of the case, and the respective interests of both parties are to be carefully weighed. The balancing exercise is summarised by the Court of Appeal in A S McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd 10 as follows: [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adv...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Small [2024] NZLCDT 32 (16 October 2024) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...(3) A person commits an offence against this Act and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $25,000 who knowingly acts in contravention of subsection (1). [10] Rule 10.2 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules) provides: Reputation of profession 10.2 A lawyer must not engage in conduct that tends to bring the profession into disrepute. [11] Rule 10.9 of the Rules provides: Misleading and deceptive conduct 10.9 A lawy...

9. Family Court Rewrite Submission - NZ FC Court Psych Group [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...Psychological Group. 28th February 2019. Pg. 2 We believe that could be managed through the Court and its authority and processes (perhaps with access to expert opinion about the use of such information and how children in particular can be protected). 2. The development of specialised Court staff, both at the level of the Registry (the proposed Senior Family Court Registrar) and the proposed Family Justice Service Coordinators. Specialist Psychologists believe that everyon...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Burcher [2018] NZLCDT 42 [pdf, 111 KB]

    ...Burcher’s actions in breaching r 11.1 and misleading Mr Eades were deliberate, as found by the Tribunal. (d) That the practitioner’s breaches were not one isolated act but involved a series of breaches over a period of time, which displayed a lack of care and regard for his professional obligations. (e) That the practitioner had overlooked the potential conflict between his own personal interests and those of his client Mr M, although the Standards Committee accepts that he of...