Search Results

1. LCRO 48/2019 VW v EX and TY (3 May 2021) [pdf, 324 KB]

   ...[100] This contrasts with the disciplinary process which is inquisitorial and investigative, and does not sufficiently allow for the testing by cross-examination of evidence as is required for the just resolution of significant civil disputes. [101] Although decisions of Standards Committees, and Review Officers have frequently stated the complaints process is not an alternative to court proceedings, if arising out of an action in negligence brought by a client against a lawyer there...

2. [2020] NZEnvC 189 Weston Lea Limited v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 10 MB]

   BEFFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA Court: Chair: Hearing: Appearances: Date of Decision: Date of issue: IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2020] NZEnvC J ~~ of the Resource Management Act 1991 {the Act) of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act WESTON LEA LIMITED (ENV-2019-AKL-308) Appellant DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CONSERVATION (ENV-2019-AKL-310) Appellant HAMIL TON CITY COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge J

3. LCRO 161/2020 SE v GR (31 March 2021) [pdf, 305 KB]

   ...balances were put in place” by the firm. 34 This language is taken from s 12(a) of the Act, defining unsatisfactory conduct in relation to competence, above. See also r 3 above. 35 See sections 152(2)(a) and 241(c) of the Act. 17 [101] She refers to [Law Firm 2]’s 31 May 2014 invoice issued to the firm, referred to earlier, which states [Law Firm 2]’s legal services included “checking” the sale agreement and title. [102] In her submission, when Mr GR, and lat...

4. Granting aid for Waitangi Tribunal matters policy [pdf, 851 KB]

   Granting aid for Waitangi Tribunal matters Operational policy June 2016 iii Contents Status of this Operational Policy and Effective Date 1 Background 1 Introduction 1 History 1 The Waitangi Tribunal and Legal Aid 1 Defined Terms 2 Relevant Statutory and Policy Framework 2 Legal Services Act 2011 2 Other important provisions 3 Relevant Policy 3 Services for Tribunal matters funded by Legal Aid Services 4 Legal Aid Services for Proceedings before Wa

5. National Standards Committee v Shand [2019] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 3.2 MB]

   ...his rights and remedies relating to his claim against EQC and IAG. [100] We therefore, for those reasons, find that Mr Shand’s conduct was unsatisfactory in respect of this issue. Issue 2 – Comments made to the media without permission [101] The Committee alleges a breach of r 8 and 8.1 which require that a lawyer has a duty to hold all information concerning a client, a retainer, and a client’s affairs in the course of that relationship in strict confidence. [102] This al...

6. LCRO 275/2016 KN v YL (4 March 2019) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...YL when Mr HC was heading the Invercargill firm, remain in place to this day. 19 [100] Mr KN argues that the agreement precisely evidences the arrangements that he says Ms YL and the accountancy firms have followed over a number of years. [101] Whilst it is understandable that Mr KN considers that the SLA bolsters his position, I am not persuaded that the agreement provides the degree of support for his position that Mr KN considers it does. [102] As noted, the agreement was e...

7. LCRO 116/2017 GC v KM (31 May 2018) [pdf, 420 KB]

   ...35 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules, rr 7 and 7.1. 19 complaint from a client with a prospect of a disciplinary response if the lawyer does not carry out the client’s instructions.36 [101] A lawyer is required to follow a client’s instructions on the client’s matter. It has been observed that a lawyer:37 must not act in contravention of a client’s instructions. It may be appropriate for the lawyer to counsel against...

8. Chaudhary v CAC 414 [2019] NZREADT 24 (7 June 2019) [pdf, 293 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2019] NZREADT 24 READT 052/18 IN THE MATTER OF An appeal under section 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN AKHIL CHAND CHAUDHARY Appellant AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 414) First Respondent AND SUBARMANI RAJAN and SUMINTRA DEVI Second Respondents On the papers Tribunal: Hon P J Andrews, Chairperson Ms C Sandelin, Member Mr N O

9. LCRO 35/2017 QK v JF and EG (29 May 2019) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...approach throughout, Ms QK is prepared, without shred of evidence, to parlay her dissatisfaction with an entirely conventional and purely administrative process, into accusation that impugns the reputation of all of the Committee members. [101] Ms QK is critical of the Committee’s decision to, as she describes it, withhold issuing its decisions until 14 December 2016, at which point it, in Ms QK’s words, “dumped all three decisions on me just before Christmas”. [102] Ms...

10. LCRO 172/2015 and 173/2015 WL v XC and HF v XC (16 May 2019) [pdf, 269 KB]

    ...have a claim against M partnership. Appropriate steps [100] Not without some reservations, I am satisfied that Ms XC took “appropriate steps” before determining whether there were reasonable grounds for making the serious allegations. [101] For example, her first statement of claim (although wrongly naming the M partnership as the only defendant, rather than the individual partners as separate defendants) did not include any of the serious allegations, despite Mrs YP’s ins...