Search Results

1. [2016] NZEmpC 83 Savage v Capital Coast DHB [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...wished to work on particular occasions, and his acceptance of those requests, leads to a conclusion that the nature of the relationship changed. I have already found that on each such occasion Mr Savage had a choice whether to accept or not. [101] This was not a situation where an employee wished to advance his career by moving from casual to permanent status. Rather, converse circumstances gave rise to the employment agreement. Furthermore, once he agreed to be a casual empl...

2. Schiller-Cooper v Lozano [2013] NZIACDT 1 (08 January 2013) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...fees paid must be refunded pursuant to those provisions. However, for the reasons previously discussed, the threshold for a disciplinary finding requires more than simply finding there is room for a difference of view regarding the correct fee. [101] Accordingly, when dealing with sanctions the Tribunal will determine whether any fees should be refunded and any compensation awarded. Party to Mr Chang unlawfully giving immigration advice [102] I am satisfied that Mr Chang did not provid...

3. Geldenhuys v C Yap [2013] NZIACDT 27 (12 April 2013) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...a full service where she would be charged for the time engaged, or alternatively a “budget service” where she would pay a fixed fee and be allowed a set number of hours. [100] Ms Geldenhuys elected to proceed with the full service option. [101] Ms Yap said that “whilst the company has hourly rates these are not the sole method of calculating payments for the client”; she said that fees for particular services were capped. 13 [102] Ms Yap said that her “salary...

4. MSC v Scholes [2013] NZIACDT 58 (10 September 2013) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...circumstances were properly evaluated, prior to an application for a student visa being lodged. The outcome was a result of “market conditions” affecting Immigration New Zealand’s determination. The outcome was different from other comparable cases. [101] She had explained the conditions on a limited purpose visa a number of times. [102] Ms Scholes was not informed about the second IELTS results until May 2011. [103] She expected the complainant to collect the documents in person...

5. RV v Auckland Standards Committee LCRO 299 / 2011 (18 October 2012) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...review is complete, as the issue of whether the charge is to be a separate charge or a charge of serial behaviour under section 241(c), or indeed a lesser charge of unsatisfactory conduct pursuant to section 241(e) will assume some significance. [101] In the circumstances, SA rightly submits that each matter complained of must be capable of meeting the threshold test - namely that there is a real risk that the Practitioner may be suspended or struck off. [102] Having reached the c...

6. AB v CD LCRO 332/2013 [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...obligation. The answer to that question was a matter for Mr AB’s professional judgement based on what he knew at the time. [100] Mr AB first accepted instructions from both clients to act in the negligence proceedings in July or August 2011. [101] [Insurer] had not made a decision on whether to cover Mr CD for his claim under the policy at that stage. There is no evidence either way as to whether [Insurer] received legal advice on its legal obligations to Mr CD under its pol...

7. Dudley - Matoa, Whara and Te Karaka Ahu Whenua Trust (2017) 150 Taitokerau MB 151 (150 TTK 151) [pdf, 275 KB]

   150 Taitokerau MB 151 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20160005696 UNDER Sections 19, 231, and 238 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Matoa, Whara and Te Karaka Ahu Whenua Trust BETWEEN ROSE DUDLEY Applicant Hearing: 5 December 2016, 143 Taitokerau MB 184-209 10 March 2017, 146 Taitokerau MB 176-194 26 April 2017, 149 Taitokerau MB 218-242 (Heard at Kaikohe and Whangarei) Judgment: 23

8. [2018] NZLCDT 1 Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Hay [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...that any legal advice that she needed was provided by him and his status as a lawyer, we accept that Ms C was not Mr Hay’s client. Issue 2(b) – Other Professional Obligations [89] We accept the submission by the Standards Committee that Rule 5.1013 imposes obligations on Mr Hay in relation to this transaction even for a non-client. 13 A lawyer must not draft or assist in drafting a provision of a will or other instrument under which th...

9. National Standards Committee v Young [2017] NZLCDT 41 [pdf, 315 KB]

   ...to the said lies. D also repeated the same false facts many times to make it real, as Mal Zedong says “if you tell a lie a thousand times, it will be truth”. He repeatedly misled the Court that the contract was entered “vis a vis”.” [101] Mr Young’s literal and dogmatic interpretation of the phrase “vis a vis” featured strongly in his allegations against Mr D, and indeed at the Tribunal hearing. Mr Young, in cross-examining Mr D asked him what he had meant when he ha...

10. LCRO 217/2017 PY v SD [pdf, 395 KB]

    ...between 7 October 2016, the date of the 2016 personal care and welfare EPA, and receipt by Mrs PY of Mr SD’s 18 May 2017 letter, the 2013 personal care and welfare EPA would have “continue[d] in force”.41 (5) EPA – donor capacity [101] Before a donor signs an instrument intended to be an EPA, the matters a lawyer/witness must attend to include: 40 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at...