Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. [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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. LCRO 104/2018 CJ v MV (28 February 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...was necessary, advised Mr CJ accordingly, and moved on to other things. [100] Once he became aware the notice had not reached the register, Mr MV did the right things, including apologising to Mr CJ, who seemed to accept it at the time. [101] Mr MV also explained what he had done to minimise the chance of a recurrence. I consider it unlikely Mr MV, or anyone under his supervision, will make the same mistake again. [102] Nonetheless, Mr MV’s conduct fell below a proper sta...

9. LCRO 39/2019 Yuri Lukas v BW and CV (29 November 2019) [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...further examples of conduct by Mr Lukas that cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. [100] The allegations by Mr Lukas are threatening in nature, the implication being that a breach of the terms of engagement carries some sort of penalty. [101] Such conduct is completely at odds with a lawyer’s fundamental duty to care for and protect the client. [102] Mr Lukas’ threatening comments amounts to unsatisfactory conduct in terms of s 12(b) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2...

10. INZ (Carley) v De'Ath [2018] NZIACDT 45 (13 November 2018) [pdf, 213 KB]

    ...have been personally carried out by a licensed adviser, in breach of cl 3(c) 4 Section 51(1). 5 Section 53(1). 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 11 (3) Failing to ensure that a written agreement was provided to all applicants once they decided to proceed and, in some instances where it was provided, failing to explain significant matters in the agreement...