New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disciplinary procedure

Legal area

Court

26 Aug 2020

A LAWYER v NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2020] NZHC 2173

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2173
Court

High Court

The Court refused a complete stay but granted conditional, limited relief: continuation of preparatory steps short of any substantive hearing was permitted; disclosure of the investigator's reports to parties and advisers was allowed only after receipt of unqualified, written confidentiality undertakings acknowledging that any breach would be treated as contempt of court and only if the respondents were satisfied that adequate safeguards were in place; if safeguards were inadequate no disclosures were to occur pending the appeal; disclosure to the applicant was subject to the same undertaking…
13 Aug 2020

RE VALUERS REGISTRATION BOARD [2020] NZHC 2050

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2050
Court

High Court

Section 31(1)(c) of the Valuers Act 1948 prohibits improper, unethical or incompetent conduct in the performance of duties as a valuer; the correct approach is the established two-step inquiry (prove the charge, then assess whether the proven conduct is deserving of discipline); the Board of Appeal in King erred in importing the Pillai high-threshold test into the second-step sanction inquiry under the Act.
2 Jun 2020

T v A Professional Conduct Committee [2020] NZHC 1179

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1179
Court

High Court

The Tribunal exceeded the scope of the charge by relying on subsequent conduct rather than focusing on conduct "by entering" the sexual relationship at a single point in time; applying the Collie objective test to the facts as they were at the time of entry (pre-existing friendship, one prior treatment, no evidence of vulnerability or imbalance) the conduct would not have been likely to bring discredit to the chiropractic profession under s100(1)(b); therefore professional misconduct was not established and the Tribunal's finding and penalty were quashed.
8 Apr 2020

McEWEN v SPRING HILL CORRECTIONS FACILITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2020] NZHC 724

Citation

[2020] NZHC 724
Court

High Court

Prison managers had lawful power to remove the prisoner from the self-care unit and terminate workshop employment on legitimate safety grounds, but in doing so they failed to comply with the statutory obligation to ensure fair treatment and the principles of natural justice because they did not adequately inform the prisoner of the safety reasons for their managerial decisions or give him a real opportunity to respond; remedial relief limited to declaration and direction to notify the Parole Board, not reinstatement or compensation.
9 Aug 2018

ASLAM v TRANSPORTATION AUCKLAND CORPORATION LIMITED [2018] NZCA 301

Citation

[2018] NZCA 301
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the asserted errors were either factual findings or issues confined to the parties that did not raise questions of law of general or public importance; the Employment Court did not err in holding the employer's investigation and process were fair and in the range of what a fair and reasonable employer could do under s103A.
17 Oct 2017

McLANAHAN & ANOR v THE NEW ZEALAND REGISTERED ARCHITECTS BOARD [2017] NZCA 458

Citation

McLANAHAN & ANOR v THE NEW ZEALAND REGISTERED ARCHITECTS BOARD [2017] NZCA 458
Court

Court of Appeal

r 62(a) is limited to the jurisdictional question whether the alleged facts, if proven, could amount to any ground of discipline in s 25(1); an investigating committee exceeded its powers by dismissing 23 heads of complaint solely under r 62(a) on the basis of evidential insufficiency; those dismissals were quashed and the Board was directed to reconsider under r 70.
16 Mar 2017

SWEDISH TORP LTD v STANDING [2017] NZHC 460

Citation

[2017] NZHC 460
Court

High Court

An investigator's reports under ss 91-93 and 100-115 of the Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006 are expressions of opinion about whether a complaint should be referred to the Board and lack the requisite finality and certainty to found issue estoppel; consequently the District Court erred in treating the investigator as a judicial tribunal of competent authority and in striking out the appellant's negligence claims.
10 Jul 2015

NOTTINGHAM, NOTTINGHAM AND MCKINNEY v THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2015] NZHC 1616

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1616
Court

High Court

The High Court allowed the appeal because the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant matters crucial to credibility and culpability — specifically a misapprehension of when the second respondent was alerted to the issue and the Tribunal's failure to consider fresh witness statements that directly contradicted key witnesses; the Tribunal's decision was therefore not reasonably open and the matter is remitted for reconsideration (including possible direction to the Committee to lay charges).
17 Dec 2014

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v BURTON CA700/2014 [2014] NZCA 621

Citation

[2014] NZCA 621
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the respondent pleaded guilty to serious offences of obtaining by deception involving a significant misappropriation of $105,776 and a gross breach of trust, he was not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll and his name must be struck off to protect the administration of justice and the public.
17 Sept 2014

HARDING v INSTITUTION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2014] NZHC 2251

Citation

[2014] NZAR 1252
Court

High Court

IPENZ had jurisdiction to hear complaints about Harding because he was a member at the time of the conduct and when the complaints were made; resignation before the hearing does not remove contractual submission to the disciplinary process for past conduct (though it may limit available sanctions), and the absence of an appeal against a preliminary jurisdictional ruling under the Regulations does not constitute a breach of natural justice.