116 items matching your search terms
...which it may be inferred that the Court of Appeal did not consider there was a material divergence of views. [85] There was one other post Erceg judgment of the Court of Appeal to which reference should be made. In Joint Action Funding Ltd v Eichelbaum, the Court when fixing a timetable as to whether a suppression order should be made, directed the parties to explain “… why a suppression order is warranted in light of the 43...
...8 judgment, to be made by the tribunal as an informed and expert body on all the facts of the case. [30] As a Full Court observed in McDonald v Canterbury District Law Society (High Court, Wellington, M 215/87, 10 August 1989, Eichelbaum CJ, Heron and Ellis JJ) at p 12: Even in the absence of dishonesty, striking-off will be appropriate where there has been a serious breach of a solicitor’s fundamental duties to his client. [31] It is important to bear in mind tha...
...difficult exercise of judgment, to be made by the tribunal as an informed and expert body on all the facts of the case. [30] As a Full Court observed in McDonald v Canterbury District Law Society (High Court, Wellington, M 215/87, 10 August 1989, Eichelbaum CJ, Heron and Ellis JJ) at p 12: Even in the absence of dishonesty, striking-off will be appropriate where there has been a serious breach of a solicitor’s fundamental duties to his client. 9 [31] It is important to...
...[it] thinks fit”) that a re-hearing is not a matter of procedure. It is a significant aspect of jurisdiction and the power to regulate procedure cannot be used to increase jurisdiction. See Browne v Minister of Immigration [1990] NZAR 67, 69-70 (Eichelbaum CJ). To similar effect see Akewushola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] 2 All ER 148 (CA) at 153j where Sedley LJ, delivering the judgment of the Court, stated: For my part I do not think that, slips apart, a sta...
...difficult exercise of judgment, to be made by the tribunal as an informed and expert body on all the facts of the case. [30] As a Full Court observed in McDonald v Canterbury District Law Society (High Court, Wellington, M 215/87, 10 August 1989, Eichelbaum CJ, Heron and Ellis JJ) at p 12: Even in the absence of dishonesty, striking-off will be appropriate where there has been a serious breach of a solicitor’s fundamental duties to his client. [31] It is important to bear in mind t...
...[78] While there was also a ground advanced as to family members sharing the same name, we noted in our interim decision that was given little weight. That is really the only ground remaining and we consider, having regard to the decision in Eichelbaum that it is insufficient in the present matter to displace the starting point of openness contained in s 240 of the LCA. There is simply insufficient evidence to justify a finding that the interests of the practitioners and their fami...
...2021, QH responded to the objection to the introduction of further evidence, notably the first page of the valuation report. He says that at the start of the process, he was told to provide the bare minimum of evidence 16 Nottingham, above n 8; Eichelbaum v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 303) [2016] NZREADT 3 at [47]–[52]; Moseley v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 1907) [2021] NZREADT 19 at [59]. 17 to prove that the advertising was false. He now knows that he needs...
...services provisions of the Act?: 24 See Orlov v New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal [2014] NZHC 1987 at [97] and following. This approach has been followed in the Tribunal: see Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Eichelbaum [2014] NZLCDT 68 at [30]. 25 See Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 26 at [44]. 26 See A v Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 [2015] NZHC 1896 at [60]. 15 Unsatisfactory conduct (s 12(c)) [97] As in...
...silent as to whether the charges were owed to him or his employer.24 Mr Young’s employment with Avondale Law ended by 10 November 2017.25 23 Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Eichelbaum [2014] NZLCDT 68. 24 Bundle p 35. 25 Bundle p 86. 20 [73] On or around 20 November 2017, Mr Young sent Mr Z a WeChat message in Chinese script stating: “Please withdraw from the Law Society, or do you need to ask a ju...
...34 Section 7(1)(b)(ii) of the Act. 35 See Orlov v New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal [2014] NZHC 1987 at [97] and following. This approach has been followed in the Tribunal: see Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Eichelbaum [2014] NZLCDT 68 at [30]. 36 See Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 26 at [44]. 37 See Mr A v Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 [2015] NZHC 1896 at [60]. 31 [200] With the exception of the May – July...