Search Results

1. Johnson v Canterbury/Westland Standards Committee 3 - Outcome of appeal of decisions [2018] NZLCDT 5 and [2018] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 439 KB]

   ...[147]. owed a duty to warn the Bartles of the risks they faced because of the structure of the proposed transaction and because of the circumstances of the Bartles. Randerson J stated: [149] Since [the solicitor] knew the Bartles had few resources other than their home and were pensioners, it would have been obvious to [the solicitor] that they could not possibly meet their obligations in the event of Blue Chip’s collapse. These matters clearly raised serious issues abo...

2. LCRO 194/2017 MA v NB, OC and PD (20 September 2019) [pdf, 344 KB]

   ...determinations by a Standards Committee (and this Office) where allegations and submissions by (in particular) complainants, are often made in a ‘scatter-gun’ manner and often without merit or substance. It would be an appalling misuse of the resources of Standards Committees and this Office, if the requirement is to specifically address every allegation and submission. [31] I agree with those observations. Obviously enough, what Diplock LJ said about matters of law applies simil...

3. Harland v ACC [2014] NZACA 13 [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...8 At that time the assessment tools I used were the Carolina Curriculum (0 to 2 years and 2 to 5 years), and the LAP (Learning Accomplishment profile). • Since that first assessment in 2008 this assessor has put considerable effort and resources into this particular assessment process in order to provide a more robust and validated assessment of retrospective support needs. I now primarily reference the age norm related data from the HELP (Hawaii Early Learning Profile), PEDI...

4. LCRO 42/2021 JKL Limited v HC and GD (30 August 2021) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...and rates. The Committee said that it was satisfied that “there was no basis for complaining about duplication of effort by [Law Firm A]” and that Mr HC’s time had been written off. (g) The matter was of importance to JKL and significant resources were applied to it by the lawyers. [50] For those reasons, including Mr FB’s “stated acceptance … of the outstanding invoices”, the Committee was satisfied that the fees were fair and reasonable and that “[Law Firm A]...

5. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Withers [2013] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...(“Clifden”), in relation to the subdivision of land it owned at Taylors Mistake Road, Christchurch. Mr Withers was acting as solicitor for Clifden on the matter, and he was also a director and shareholder in Clifden. [44] The Council had issued a resource consent for the subdivision, and a development contribution of $117,916.10 was required to be paid by Clifden to the Council as part of the subdivision process. [45] The Council’s policy was that the development cont...

6. Chittock v ACC [2014] NZACA 4 [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...for full time paid care. The latest regulations made under the 1992 Act22 whilst different in approach do not undermine the Authority’s view as to the way the section should be interpreted. If anything they give weight to the view that more resources not less should be directed towards people shockingly injured.” [43] In Simpson and Matthews v ACC23 Heron J said that the key issue in the Matthews case was whether the phrase “constant personal attention” can be interp...

7. Bristol v Ngāti Rangi Trust - Rangiwaea-Tāpiri [2017] Chief Judge's MB 269 (2017 CJ 269) [pdf, 435 KB]

   ...legal claim to the land, through an ancestor named Uenuku, which would be separate and exclusive from the claim of Ngāti Rangi. It is evident that Ngāti Uenuku, in its various forms, has a close association with Ruapehu and has utilised its resources for seasonal purposes, including camping and hunting. The extent to which this may have included the occupation or use of Rangipō North 8 or Rangiwaea Tāpiri is unclear. What is known is that both tribes have a close association...

8. LCRO 158/2019 RL v BN, TG and VK (1 April 2021) [pdf, 604 KB]

   ...considered advice. Against this, it is argued for the lawyers that they had been successful in achieving what Ms RL had set out to achieve, namely to delay [Co 2]’s claim until October 2016 in order to provide opportunity for Ms RL to garner her resources and to avoid any prospect of an adverse court finding which would have had consequences for her professional reputation. It was the lawyers’ view that Ms RL had been consistent in her position that she wished to pursue her co...

9. 2022-12-07-Decision-on-Application-to-Remove-Counsel-Assisting.pdf [pdf, 390 KB]

   ...Government agencies, albeit both were decided under the former 1994 Regulations. [59] In Greymouth Petroleum v Solicitor-General25 the then-Crown Solicitor for New Plymouth sought dispensation, under Reg 8, to act for a longstanding client in a Resource Management Act prosecution. Greymouth Petroleum had elected trial by jury and sought to engage the Crown Solicitor to act on its’ behalf. The Deputy Solicitor-General (on behalf of the Solicitor-General) declined a dispensation...

10. LCRO 175/2022 OP v VN (10 October 2023) [pdf, 315 KB]

    ...The applicable TA Regulations and s 110 of the Act exist not only to prevent the misuse of client funds but also to ensure that factual disputes of the kind that that have resulted in this instance in the otherwise unnecessary expenditure of inquiry resources at Committee and LCRO level do not occur. [151] There must always be an audit trail. A barrister cannot accept a cash payment and pocket it. Mr VN’s belated protestations that this did not occur have been found by both my collea...