Search Results

1. UC v YW LCRO 165/2013 (30 November 2016) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...to make findings of misconduct, but in exercising the jurisdiction available to it, this Office could return the matter to the Committee for further consideration, or direct that the matters be considered by the Disciplinary Tribunal. 19 [101] But having brought, as I am required to do, an independent and robust judgement to the matter before me, I do not consider that the conduct, considered in context, is of sufficient gravity to merit a referral to the Tribunal. [102] In ta...

2. LCRO 151/2016 and 157/2016 NS v TD and TD v NS (27 September 2018) [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...clear that the Committee effectively put the meeting material to one side when looking at Mr NS’ conduct in acting for two clients in one matter. It found the breach to have occurred some weeks before the round-table meeting, if not sooner. [101] It may have been preferable for the Committee to have declined to receive the meeting material as part of Mr TD’s complaint, and to have commenced an own-motion inquiry into the issue of whether Mr NS had breached r 6.1. Approaching t...

3. LCRO 135/2018 UQ v VF (26 May 2019) [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...was to blame for any delay. [100] There is no evidence at all of Mr VF acting in any sort of discriminatory or unfair way towards the UQs. Nor of any lack of respect. As I remarked earlier, his 25 October 2017 letter displayed no such signs. [101] Mr UQ takes umbrage at the suggestion by Mr VF that the UQs might wish to look elsewhere for a professional trustee for the future. I see that suggestion as reflecting no more than that matters had reached a point where it was open to M...

4. Ref: LCRO 99/2019 SQ v LP (27 October 2020) [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...there was no charge for an appraisal. 17 [100] He claims Mr WR’s inquiry duplicated Mr ET’s inquiry a year earlier, yet Mr WR charged for the second request.23 Mr LP July 2017 – objection to Council’s 1 September 2015 valuation [101] Although not addressed in his response to Mr SQ’s review application, on 28 June 2018 Mr WR informed (by letter) Mr SQ that [Mr SQ] was not “disadvantaged” by Mr ET’s “handling of the matter” because the LVT “would not ha...

5. LCRO 189/2019 RT v AC (30 November 2020) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...Committee has said:22 The Committee was particularly concerned with Mr RT’s refusal to facilitate a smooth transfer of the retainer. Mr RT’s apparent belief that the ACs were contracted to him and unable to change lawyers was misguided. [101] Mr RT was not misguided and nor was his belief that the applicant could not change lawyers “apparent”. His views were founded on the fact that he had been irrevocably and unconditionally instructed to complete the sale. [102] The...

6. LCRO 72/2020 ZW v CB (29 September 2020) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...overlooked matters that Mr ZW considered significant. [100] For his part, Mr CB’s approach to Mr ZW’s case was both careful and conscientious. A feature of his management of Mr ZW’s file, was the extent to which he kept Mr ZW informed. [101] Importantly, when options being pursued hit a brick wall, alternatives were discussed. [102] Nor was it the case that Mr CB failed to caution Mr ZW when he considered that pursuing various options would not be fruitful. Mr CB advised M...

7. [2020] NZIACDT 42 - NMS v Mercado (1 October 2020) [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...[2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 6 Section 50. 7 Section 51(1). 8 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citation omitted). 9 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 8, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 12 [59] A letter (26 November 2019) from Mr Z was produced in support. He and the complainant attended a meeting with Mr Mercado in November 2017. Mr Mercado assured him that the complainant could work 70/30...

8. IPT 2019-20 Annual Report [pdf, 477 KB]

   ...Age (Days) of Active Appeals 30 June 2013 30 June 2014 30 June 2015 30 June 2016 30 June 2017 30 June 2018 30 June 2019 30 June 2020 Tribunal Average (days) 247 228 208 201 175 175 274 353 Residence 240 134 173 116 60 101 76 98 Deportation (Non-resident) 228 230 184 127 90 89 121 141 Refugee and Protection 329 248 215 159 137 98 142 162 Deportation (Resident) 425 425 361 500 574 481 604 856 Comparative Graph Showing Average Age of Active App...

9. LCRO 7/2018 AB v CD (26 November 2019) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...a convenient summary for the lawyer, does little in assist in clarifying, for the lawyer’s client, what was done. [100] But I note however that Mr AB’s account recorded time spent on Mr CD’s file for the period covered by the account. [101] By a fine margin, I conclude that the final account Mr AB provided to Mr CD met the requirements of r 9.7 [102] However, it was not the case that Mr CD’s complaint was confined to concern that Mr AB had failed to provide him with an acc...

10. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Katui Early Childhood Learning Centre Ltd [2019] NZHRRT 55 [pdf, 193 KB]

    ...88(1)(a) and (b). [59.3] Damages for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings in the sum of $30,000: s 85(1)(c) and s 88(1)(c). [59.4] An order requiring all of Katui’s shareholders, directors and staff to attend an online “Privacy 101” workshop run by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, at Katui’s expense: s 85(1)(d). http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM297469 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0028/latest...