Search Results

1. LCRO 145/2015 and 148/2015 YK v GS and GS v YK [pdf, 407 KB]

   ...Mr YK was to prepare a final account and provide copies of the account to this Office and to Mr GS. [99] I indicated to Mr YK, that the account should provide a notation, recording the work completed. [100] Mr YK duly forwarded his account. [101] There is an aspect to Mr YK’s account that presents as problematical. [102] Mr YK has consistently advanced argument that his fee arrangement with Mr GS (an arrangement he himself concedes to be unusual) was based on a simple arrangem...

2. LCRO 276/2013+293/2013+242/2016 CS v VN, PR and ZW ZM v VC [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...of the misconduct and culpability of the practitioner, with the various mitigating and aggravating features being taken into account when fixing penalty. Acknowledgement of error and acceptance of responsibility are matters for mitigation. [101] It is a serious matter for a lawyer to breach a duty owed to the court in litigation. However, Mr CS responsibly accepted at the review hearing that the criticisms levelled against him by the complainants were at least in part a consequen...

3. P Singh v Kumar [2011] NZIACDT 24 (18 August 2011) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...[100] Clause 1 of the Code requires a licensed immigration adviser to perform services “with ... respect and professionalism.” The rude and abusive conduct lacked respect and professionalism, and thereby breached the requirements of Clause 1. [101] The conduct was calculated to lower the estimation of the Adviser’s profession in the eyes of the public. Clause 2.1 of the Code requires a licensed immigration adviser to: “f) uphold the integrity of New Zealand’s immigration system...

4. JR v SW LCRO 91/2014 (27 March 2015) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...[99] The first estimate to consider for this billing period is the estimate provided on 12 July 2011. [100] This estimate focused on the work to be completed in preparation for the judicial settlement conference set down for November 2011. [101] The estimate notes that costs incurred in the inspection and analysis of further discovery, would depend on the volume of documents received. [102] Mr SW submits that the significant increase of costs for this billing period (which he ack...

5. AD & Anor v ZU LCRO 60/2013 (3 March 2014) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...the GQ’ lawyer before the ADs had signed the Deed. His acknowledgement was prompt and appropriate. He also confirmed he would not do anything like that again. As set out above, no penalty has been imposed in respect of that allegation. [101] It was apparent at the review hearing that the ADs were so aggrieved, they would probably have laid a complaint against Mr ZU even if he had not taken a beer with the GQ and their lawyer after the negotiations were concluded. The drinking...

6. LCRO 116/2015 QO v Standards Committee (14 June 2018) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...description is more likely to be accurate than Mrs MN’s. While Mrs MN should have had no information that was confidential to any of Ms QO’s other clients, the scale of the disclosure was not as large as the Committee’s decision records. [101] After Mrs MN’s revelation, three key points stand out. Ms QO: (a) did not know for a fact that Mrs MN had any confidential information; (b) did not ignore the risk, and endeavoured to negotiate an acceptable outcome with Mrs MN o...

7. [2018] NZEmpC 47 New Zealand Nurses Organisation v Waikato District Health Board [pdf, 366 KB]

   ...consequence that Ms Panettiere resigned on notice rather than explicitly retired. The defendant does not argue otherwise and the point is accepted. [100] We do not accept this argument. The retiring gratuity as a reward for service [101] NZNO submits that the retiring gratuity is a reward for loyal long service, noting: (a) the scale of maximum retiring gratuities; and (b) that a gratuity may be paid where an employee dies before he or she retires. [102] Mr Harriso...

8. [2021] NZEmpC 66 Smartlift Systems Ltd v Armstrong [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...humiliated and annoyed by the scores he had been given in the selection process, becoming bitter and angry about how he had been treated; and concerned about finances, in particular, the potential loss of his rental home due to his dismissal. [101] The Authority found that the humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings largely arose from the scores Smartlift gave them in the selection process, and the financial concerns they had over losing income. [102] In evaluating the...

9. LCRO 175/2020 PM obo MNO Limited v FS and BL (22 April 2021) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...Manager dated 8 February 2021, Mr PM framed his timing argument as follows: I was estopped from completing my lawful right to complete payment/settlement of my lease obligations within a time frame provided by [Ms FS] in [the demand letter]. [101] Couched as a disciplinary issue, I interpret Mr PM’s complaint to be that Mr BL breached r 2.3 by improperly using a legal process (service of the Notice) so as to cause Mr PM unnecessary embarrassment, distress or inconvenience. [102]...

10. LCRO 163/2020 DM v TN and EX (9 April 2021) [pdf, 215 KB]

    ...must be satisfactorily explained to the relevant decision maker. [100] There is no suggestion that during this time (the end of 20XX and October 20XX), Mr DM was himself responsible for the delay. Certainly, Mr TN has not made this claim. [101] As well, there is the delay between 1 April 20XX when Mr DM, through Mr TN’s receptionist, gave instructions to proceed with the personal grievance, and at the end of June 20XX when the file was handed over to Mr EX. [102] Mr TN had to...