Search Results

1. LCRO 80/2019 ZB v YC (18 August 2021) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...consistent with how decision-makers routinely express rejection of one side’s argument in a case. [100] An adversarial process will produce a decision in which one side prevails, meaning that arguments of the other side have not been accepted. [101] That is an entirely different matter from a decision-maker criticising the conduct of a lawyer. Rejection of a lawyer’s arguments does not necessarily mean that the lawyer has acted in an unprofessional or unethical way. [102] I d...

2. Hawke's Bay Standards Committee v Clarkson [2014] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 258 KB]

   ...conduct of “a lawyer” and thus caught by the provisions of s 7 regarding misconduct. We are satisfied that Ms Clarkson’s failure 22 See the scope of the definition of “misconduct” in s 6 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. 23 Section 101(6) Law Practitioners Act 1982. 24 Section 262 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. 18 to comply with s 147 would constitute misconduct if she had been a lawyer at the time. Where the failure to comply is by a person who is a forme...

3. LCRO 185/2020 BC v DE and FG decision & minute (20 May 2021 & 30 April 2021) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...The same basic principle of allowing a decision-maker to assess whether there has been some breach of their procedures before the lawyers’ disciplinary machinery is triggered, applies to a complaint to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. [101] If, after investigation of a complaint that a lawyer has interfered with another person’s privacy, the Privacy Commissioner forms the opinion that there has been an interference with privacy, it is open to the Commissioner to refer the m...

4. LCRO 68/2021 BU - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (30 July 2021) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...finalise the administration of the estate. [100] I do not consider that the continuing delay in finalising the estate can be explained, as Mr BU endeavours to do, by explanation of continuing problems with the management of his trust account. [101] Nor do I consider that either the conduct breaches relating to the share transfers, or the trust account breaches, were of sufficient similarity to complaint that Mr BU had failed to act competently and in a timely manner in his capacity...

5. LCRO 211/2020 BU - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (30 July 2021) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...that he had, as directed, reflected on his conduct and that the opportunity to do so had been both “joyous and pleasurable”. He thanked the LCRO for the opportunity. [100] All of this, in an apology that was purportedly written for Mr GC. [101] Mr BU would argue that his description of the opportunity offered for self reflection as joyous and pleasurable was a sincere reflection of his position, but he runs 18 the obvious risk in describing his response in such effusive ter...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 76 NZQA v Hickey [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...duration of his employment. In that time NZQA was obliged to deal with a continually deteriorating working relationship. The close management Mr Spencer described did not bear fruit or prevent what happened at the November 2021 workshop. [101] As well as deteriorating, or deteriorated, working relationships, if Mr Hickey was to return to work he would face more than one investigation into the alleged non- disclosure of relevant aspects of his health, about what happened at the wor...

7. LCRO 36/2021 ED v MR and FR (14 April 2022) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...[100] Mrs ED says that Mr MR knew the purchaser of Mrs DM’s property. Mr MR confirms that he did know the purchaser (Ms QQ) but he says that he only became aware that she was the purchaser after receiving the signed offer for the property. [101] Mrs ED seems to suggest that Mr MR acted against her interests by being involved with acceptance of the offer. The contract to sell the property was signed by Mrs DM herself. If she had not done so, the contract could have been signed b...

8. [2022] NZIACDT 10 - BC v Lawlor (18 May 2022) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...Disciplinary Tribunal [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]. 9 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 8, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 11 From the complainant [57] There are no submissions from the complainant, or from her father or brother-in- law. From the adviser [58] There is a memorandum (30 August 2021) from Mr Moses. It is sup...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 218 New Zealand Nurses Organisation v Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...Zealand Ltd v Postles [2002] 1 ERNZ 71 (CA) at [5]; and see Van Kleef v Alliance Group Ltd, above n 18. [100] The challenge seeking a declaration that the objection to disclosure was ill-founded is allowed, but only in part. Result [101] Directions as to representation20 and to disclosure21 are made as above. [102] I reserve costs. [103] As I indicated to counsel, I will convene a telephone directions conference in the near future to assess progress to deal with any...

10. [2023] NZREADT 5 – KM v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 2102) (20 March 2023) [pdf, 205 KB]

    ...with him at some point in time over potential investment properties, we accept her evidence that the first communication she had with the bidder over the property in question (after the listing in January 2021) was at about 5:03 pm on 1 April. [101] In conclusion on the first two matters raised on appeal, we dismiss the allegation of concealment of the bidder’s identity. The appellant was not entitled to know the bidder’s name. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that t...