Search Results

1. LCRO 283/2014 AD v FR and OR (31 August 2018) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...finding was appropriate. [99] Turning to the penalty imposed, Mr AD submitted that a fine of $5,000 was excessive. [100] Determining an appropriate level of a fine to be imposed, engages an element of the discretion exercised by Committees. [101] There is no formula by which to calculate the appropriate level of a fine. As such, this Office would have to have good reason to interfere with the exercise of that discretion. That said, the expectation of this Office is that it wi...

2. [2019] NZEmpC 167 Bradley v Ngāti Apa Ki Te Rā Tō Charitable Trust [pdf, 424 KB]

   ...flawed and, in any event, it had already decided to dismiss him regardless of the outcome of that investigation. 1 Bradley v Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Tō Charitable Trust [2018] NZERA Christchurch 101. [3] The Trust had started an investigation about whether there had been a lack of financial management by Mr Bradley that allowed certain invoices to be approved for payment that its Board considered should not have been approved....

3. LCRO 181/2017 FW and KP v BG (31 October 2019) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...reason, I decline Ms CP’s invitation to award costs against Mr FW and Ms KP. 26 Legal Complaints Review Office Guidelines for Parties to Review (August 2010). 18 Anonymised publication [101] Pursuant to s 206(4) of the Act, I direct that this decision be published so as to be accessible to the wider profession in a form anonymising the parties and absent of anything as might lead to their identification. DATED this 31st...

4. LCRO 215/2018 WN v ZD (31 October 2019) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...disagreement as to what was said in the phone conversation of 30 May 2017, what is not contested is that the conversation was prompted by inquiry from Mr WN. Ms ZD appears to have given no priority to ensuring that Mr and Mrs WN were kept informed. [101] At the time Ms ZD represented Mr and Mrs WN, she was an associate of the firm. She was a senior lawyer. She had the primary responsibility for carriage of the file. It was her duty to promptly inform the clients that she was r...

5. [2021] NZACC 11 - Murrell v ACC (12 January 2021) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...this is facet joint syndrome arising from the accident and Mr Howie, Dr Hayden, Dr Reeves and Dr Yarnall disagreeing with the diagnosis of facet joint syndrome and that the MRI scan shows no acute changes attributable to the accident. [101] I find the report of Dr Templer and his team illuminating. This was a consultation in person and included a clinical psychologist, a physiotherapist and a clinical nurse – specialist persistent pain. That consultation showed that in spi...

6. LCRO 143/2020 TJ v YY (16 December 2021) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...Committees, where the Committees not only invite the parties to provide submissions on the issues identified as being at the centre of the Committee’s inquiry, but also invite the parties to provide submissions on the issue of possible publication. [101] Mindful of the considerable delay that has occurred to date, and in a pragmatic attempt to ensure the most expeditious path to final outcome for both parties I propose to make directions that: (a) Notice is to be provided to the...

7. [2021] NZEnvC 168 Director-General of Conservation v Thames-Coromandel District Council [pdf, 454 KB]

   ...advances in the science on the evidence before us at this stage. For clarity, we set out our key findings from the earlier decision. They are to be found late in that decision under headings “The Core Issue” and “Assessment”. In paragraph [101] we recorded a strong statement by a plant pathologist called by the Director-General. Dr I Horner: The long-term survival of kauri forest depends on preventing the spread of kauri dieback into these “clean” areas of forest. If...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. 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...