Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 168 Lawson v NZ Transport Agency interlocutory [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantial security may, in effect, prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. An order having that effect should be made only after careful consideration and in a case in which the claim has little chance of success. Access to the courts for a genuine plaintiff is not lightly to be denied. 3 Oldco PTI Ltd v Houston [20...

2. AX v ZM LCRO 244/2012 (23 April 2014) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...[Organization A] to provide her with another lawyer. The Committee then considered the first and second issues in the context of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules) 2008 (the Rules). [8] The Committee considered the written information provided, and found there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Mr ZM had lost his temper with Ms AX. It also considered that while there had be...

3. McNie v CAC2004 & Proude [2013] NZREADT 49 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...litigation. [3] Generally speaking, that dispute related to the mortgagee sale of a farm property of the applicant and his wife who, inter alia, alleged against Lower North 2 Island Ltd breach of contract/instructions, breach of duty of care to them, breach of duty of loyalty, and negligence in marketing the farm to obtain the best sale terms reasonably available, and with detailed allegations along those lines. [4] Paragraph 4 of the relevant settlement agreement provided...

4. BORA Maritime Security Bill [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...contain a reverse onus whereby the accused must prove something in order to escape liability (clauses 66 and 67). We are of the opinion that these provisions constitute "justified limitations" on the right to be presumed innocent that is protected by section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act. In reaching this view, we have taken into consideration the fact that the offences in question may be described as public welfare regulatory in nature and the importance of ensuring that the...

5. BC v YT LCRO 215 / 2010 (1 April 2011) [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...Abusing the Complaints Service by attempting to make a complaint against BD which was impossible in law. [5] The basis for the Applicant‟s complaint as it related to the list of cases provided by the Respondent, is that the Respondent had been careless, reckless or had lied when alleging that the Court had been critical of the Applicant in all of those cases, as he had not appeared as counsel in four of them. [6] He considers that this is a serious matter in that if a similar...

6. National Standards Committee 1 v Reed [2021] NZLCDT 31 (2 December 2021) [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...been established, may demonstrate insight by the practitioner into the causes and effects of the wrongdoing. This, coupled with acceptance of responsibility for the misconduct, may indicate that a lesser penalty than striking off is sufficient to protect the public in the future. [188] For the same reason, the practitioner’s previous disciplinary history may also assume considerable importance. In some cases, the fact that a practitioner has not been guilty of wrongdoings in the pas...

7. AG v ZT LCRO 159 / 2010 (18 February 2011) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...conduct met a standard of professionalism that was required and expected in the circumstances, in this case specifically relating to the scope of enquiry concerning the nature of ownership of the house. [21] The Practitioner denied any failure to protect her clients’ interests, implied that H did not hold positive feelings for the Applicant, and asserted that H had intended to leave nothing to the Applicant. I have discerned no evidence to support these submissions, noting that H...

8. Kaufusi v Tangilanu [2014] NZIACDT 105 (01 October 2014) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...options available; [2.2.2] Carry out the work she agreed to perform; and [2.2.3] Communicate sufficiently with her client during the process. [3] The Tribunal upheld the complaint on the grounds of negligence (section 44(2)(a) of the Act), lack of care, diligence, and professionalism in performing services (clause 1.1(a) of the Code of Conduct), breach of duties relating to written agreements (clause 1.5(a), (b) and (d)), breach of duties relating to fees (clause 8(b), (c) and (e)), an...

9. [2021] NZEnvC 195 Canyon Vineyard Limited v Central Otago District Council [pdf, 913 KB]

   ...further scenario is where no costs are awarded at all. This would normally be the position in relation to plan appeals under Schedule 1 or in cases where some aspect of the public interest counts against an award of costs being made. Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd12 [16] After Bendigo's application was lodged with the court, the court became aware of a High Court decision of Environmental Protection Attthoriry v BW Offi'hore Singapore...

10. COES - EiC - J R Sullivan (5 Feb 2021) [pdf, 2.4 MB]

    ...Jillian Ruth Sullivan 5 February2021 2 Qualifications and experience 1 My name is Jillian Ruth Sullivan. 2 I am self-employed engaged in writing, teaching, running accommodation for railtrailers and taking care of my property of twenty acres bordering the Ida Burn in Oturehua. 3 I was previously employed each USA summer by the Highlights Foundation, Pennsylvania, and Rosemont College, Philadelphia, teaching fiction and creative non-fiction....