Search Results

1. [2020] NZIACDT 50 - KX v Ji (2 December 2020) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...compliance regimes, exist to maintain high standards of propriety and professional conduct not just for the public good, but also to protect the profession itself.6 5 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citations omitted). 6 Dentice v Valuers Registration Board [1992] 1 NZLR 720 (HC) at 724–725 & 727; Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 5, at [151]. 8 [35] While protection of the public...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 71 Bowen v Bank of New Zealand [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...exercising the discretion in that way. [31] BNZ’s main point on discretion was that removing the proceedings would deprive it of its important right to challenge the Authority’s determination in the Court. That is not a strong argument. Section 178 clearly envisages removal without a hearing in the Authority, which would bring with it the result that the case would be heard for the first time in the Court. That is a consequence that has been acknowledged several times by...

3. [2020] NZIACDT 15 - KBN v Wharekura - Sanctions (10 March 2020) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...the public interest, such standards are met in the future. The protection of the public is the central focus. … 4 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citations omitted). 8 Lord Diplock pointed out in Ziderman v General Dental Council that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is to protect the public who may come to a practitioner and to maintain the high standards...

4. [2021] NZACDT 14 - YC v Wan (29 June 2021) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...…It is well established that professional disciplinary proceedings are civil and not criminal in nature. That is because the purpose of statutory disciplinary 4 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151]. 8 proceedings for various occupations is not to punish the practitioner for misbehaviour, although it may have that effect, but to ensure that appropriate standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concern...

5. [2025] NZIACDT 24 - INZ v Ma (31 March 2025) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...…It is well established that professional disciplinary proceedings are civil and not criminal in nature. That is because the purpose of statutory disciplinary 3 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] and [151]. 7 proceedings for various occupations is not to punish the practitioner for misbehaviour, although it may have that effect, but to ensure that appropriate standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned...

6. [2023] NZEnvC 138 McCallum Bros Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...under s 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN MCCALLUM BROS LIMITED (ENV-2022-AKL-121) (ENV-2022-AKL-220) Appellant/Applicant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent AND PAKIRI G AHU WHENUA TRUST (and others set out in Annexure C) Section 274 parties Court: Judge J A Smith Judge A H C Warren Commissioner S Myers Commissioner K Prime Special Advisor R Howie Hearing: 19 – 21 June 2023, 27 June 2023, 30 June 2023 Last case event: 30 June 2023 Appearance...

7. [2011] NZEmpC 160 Angus & McKean v Ports of Auckland Ltd [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...Judges who will hear the substantive proceedings, other Judges, members of the Employment Relations Authority, practitioners, and others involved in employment relations, with guidance about the interpretation and application of two new important sections of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). Those new sections change the previous law about the test of justification for dismissal or disadvantage in employment (s 103A) and the test for reinstatement (s 125). [2] By far...

8. McCarthy - Estate of Huia Maria McCarthy (2014) 88 Taitokerau MB 115 (88 TTK 115) [pdf, 532 KB]

   BB Taitokerau MB 115 IN THE MAORI LAl~ COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT Hearing: Judgment: A20130002152 UNDER Section 67, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Estate ofHuia Maria McCarthy (Kaiwhaiki 1B3A2A2 & Other blocks) BETWEEN RAYMOND JOHN McCARTHY Applicant 26 May 2014 26 August 2014 (Heard at Auckland) 03 October 2014 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J Al"\1BLER 88 Taitokerau MS 116 Introduction [1] This judgment concerns succession...

9. Reihana-Ngatote - Okahu 1, 3B2B2A, 3B2B2C, 3B2B2D, 4A, 4B, 4D, 4C1, 4C2, 3A3B2A (2016) 132 Taitokerau MB 120 (132 TTK 120) [pdf, 232 KB]

   132 Taitokerau MB 120 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20140010697 UNDER Sections 215, 231 and 238(1), Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Okahu 1, 3B2B2A, 3B2B2C, 3B2B2D, 4A, 4B, 4D, 4C1, 4C2, 3A3B2A Blocks BETWEEN TE URI REIHANA-NGATOTE and DESMOND MAHONEY Applicants Hearing: 8 June 2016 (Heard at Kaitaia) Judgment: 30 June 2016 RESERVED JUDGMENT (NO 3) OF JUDGE D J AMBL...

10. CAC306 v Zhou & Anor [2015] NZREADT 51 [pdf, 223 KB]

    ...acting in the transaction and receiving a share of the commission paid by the vendors, Mr Zhou did not disclose to the vendors that his wife was purchasing 34 Diana Drive or that he was to be the registered owner, accordingly he was in breach of sections 134-137 of the Act. Charge 4 – Disgraceful conduct of Mr She The Committee charges Mr She with misconduct under s.73(a) of the Act, in that his conduct relating to the purchase of 34 Diana Drive would reasonably be regarded by agen...