Search Results

1. LCRO 49/2022 & 93/2022 WU v MQ obo CT (25 August 2022) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...not having testamentary capacity. Mr WU did not act ‘prudently’ and make any detailed notes as to how he formed this view. [109] However, a lack of ‘prudence’ does not, in itself, attract an adverse disciplinary finding. Summary [110] Mr MQ made his complaints on behalf of Mr CT about Mr WU in March 2021, some five years after the meetings discussed above. It would be expected that a client who had instructed a lawyer to amend his or her will would have taken steps muc...

2. [2022] NZREADT 7 - WM & NU v Real Estate Agents Authority (28 April 2022) [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...found there were no mitigating circumstances.29 We agree. We find there is limited remorse and acceptance of wrongdoing (see the discussion in the apology section next). 29 Complaint C34592 Cartwright, above n 15 at [3.12]. 20 [110] We accept the complainants’ evidence that Mr Cartwright’s misrepresentation induced them to enter into the sale agreement. They recovered their deposit, but they were effectively kept out of the market for five months. They found the...

3. [2022] NZEmpC 4 Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force v Darnley [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...payments has highlighted that the PCP must proactively ensure NZDF if there was uncertainty as to its application, Ms Darnley could and should have checked before proceeding to pay an additional five months’ salary in lieu of notice. [110] Accordingly, I consider that she has contributed to her situation; and a reduction of 10 per cent is appropriate. [111] Accordingly, Ms Darnley is awarded $5,400 by way of compensation. Breach of agreement and good faith by Ms Darnley...

4. LCRO 88/2018 MC v OT (24 December 2018) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...less cost. [108] It is argument entirely unsupported by evidence. [109] There is no evidence produced to establish exactly what work was completed by Ms E. There are no time records or notated accounts to confirm the work done by her. [110] The assumption on which this criticism is based (Mr OT and Ms E did identical work) is not remotely established. The argument, from an evidential perspective, is fundamentally flawed. [111] Argument that a fee charged is unreasonable by...

5. LCRO 177/2021 FA v LL (14 March 2022) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...even when accompanied by a censure, adequately reflects the seriousness of Ms LL’s conduct. In my assessment, the starting point when considering an appropriate fine for conduct of this nature, is $4,000, even when combined with a censure. [110] From there, appropriate consideration should be given to factors such as Ms LL’s disciplinary record, and any apology. [111] As to the former, the Committee did not refer to any previous disciplinary record so the conclusion to be dra...

6. [2021] NZREADT 28 - New Zealand LJ International Limited & Zeng (15 June 2021) [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...similar conduct, in similar circumstances. The Tribunal should impose the least punitive penalty that is appropriate in the circumstances. While there is an element of punishment, rehabilitation is an important consideration.4 [66] Section 110(2) of the Act sets out the orders the Tribunal may make by way of penalty. As relevant to the present case, the Tribunal may: 2 Section 3(1) of the Act. 3 Section 3(2). 4 See Complaints Assessment Committee 10056 v Ferguson [2013] NZ...

7. [2021] NZREADT 36 - Lindsay-Penalty (13 July 2021) [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...similar conduct, in similar circumstances. The Tribunal should impose the least punitive penalty that is appropriate in the circumstances. While there is an element of punishment, rehabilitation is an important consideration.5 [43] Section 110(2) of the Act sets out the orders the Tribunal may make by way of penalty. As may be relevant to the present case, the Tribunal may: [a] make any of the orders that a Complaints Assessment Committee may make under s 93 of the Act (followi...

8. LCRO 184/2020 BC v NP and RS decision & minute (20 May 2021 & 30 April 2021) [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...complaining about Ms NP. In dealing with that complaint, Mr RS was clearly carrying out his role under s 166A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 of generally overseeing the conduct of members in the discharge of their duties under that Act. [110] In relation to complaints about Mr RS in his capacity as the Chief of the ERA, there does not seem to be a complaint process embedded in the Employment Relations Act 2000 or provided for administratively by the ERA. [111] However, give...

9. [2022] NZREADT 16 - CAC 2102 v He & An (15 August 2022) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...“disgraceful”, rather than some other form of misconduct which would more appropriately fall under s 73(b) involving a marked and serious departure from the standards relating to competence and care in conducting real estate agency work. [110] Mr Hodge submits in order to find Mr An guilty of misconduct under s 73(a) the Tribunal needs to find that he acted dishonestly when inserting the initials at the backup clause. He submits that Mr An’s actions in inserting the initials w...

10. [2022] NZIACDT 27 - ZK v Li (8 November 2022) [pdf, 212 KB]

    ...The real issue here is not whether the application was futile (it was not) nor whether Mr Li knew of the problem (plainly he did), it is whether he informed the complainant of the problem and hence the risk to the success of the application. [110] According to the complainant, Mr Li never mentioned any obstacles. He was super confident and did not make her aware of the risks. [111] It is noted that there was no written advice from Mr Li and nor do his file notes unequivocally r...