Search Results

1. LCRO 76/2022 & 81/2022 PF v BA (13 May 2024) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...to inquiries from the client in a timely manner. Rule 6: In acting for a client, a lawyer must, within the bounds of the law and these rules, protect and promote the interests of the client to the exclusion of the interests of third parties. [110] It is self-evident why these Rules are not applicable. [111] However, the number of rules that have been breached does not affect the fact that Mr BA had not met his obligations to Mrs SF.29 [112] The determination of the Committee in r...

2. [2024] NZEnvC 024 Environmental Defence Society Inc v Minister for Environment [pdf, 373 KB]

   ...fiction; there is no express deeming provision contained in the NES-PF. Moreover, the substance of these questions challenges the evaluative judgement made by the author of these regulations, that not being amenable to a declaration under s310. [110] Counsel agreed that the question does not take matters very much further than the other questions.40 On that basis, the question of whether the deeming approach is unlawful will not be further considered. Declaration four [111] S...

3. Mehrtens v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revocation, Suspension) [2023] NZACC 8 [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...of assessment and appears to be impacting on her progress and mood. Accordingly, referral for vocational support and graduated return to work will be important to initiate to reinforce return to normal functioning and a recovery orientation. [110] It is noted of course that Dr MacLeod and Dr Snell’s reports were written over three years before ACC’s decision declining cover for mental injury of 7 August 2019. They also pre-date by more than four years ACC’s decision of 22 Ju...

4. Howell v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2023] NZACC 85 [pdf, 347 KB]

   ...in 2017. [108] Finally, there is the Clinical Advisory Panel of 24 February 2022. [109] Suffice it to say that the Clinical Advisory Panel rejects the proposition of the 13 June 2012 accident causing injury to her sacroiliac joint. [110] As to the proposition that the sacroiliac joint pathology shown in the 2018 bone scan, had arisen from the fusion surgery, the Panel is less certain. The report notes: The CAP could not find strong clinical evidence to support his (Mr Finn...

5. [2023] NZREADT 28 - Whalan and Partners Ltd v CAC2107 & SL (06 October 2023) [pdf, 232 KB]

   BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2023] NZREADT 28 Reference No: READT 010/2023 IN THE MATTER OF An appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN WHALAN AND PARTNERS LIMITED t/a BAYLEYS CHRISTCHURCH Appellant AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 2107) First Respondent AND SL Second Respondent Hearing on the papers Tribunal: D J Plunkett (Chair) G J Denley (Member) P N O’Connor (Memb

6. [2024] NZIACDT 22 – QN v Nandan (29 August 2024) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...departure from accepted standards or such serious negligence as would portray indifference and an abuse of privileges as a practitioner).28 The Court found that the tribunal had not engaged at all with whether the breach amounted to misconduct. [110] This Tribunal accepts that Ms Nandan’s conduct could not be described as reprehensible, inexcusable, disgraceful, deplorable or dishonourable. Nor was it a deliberate departure from her obligations under the Code (in the sense of...

7. LCRO 145/2023 ET v PU (25 February 2025) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...[107] I respectfully agree with the Committee’s conclusions about who terminated the retainer between Mr ET and Ms PU. The r 7 of the Rules issue [108] As indicated, this issue concerns the Police letter. [109] A chronology is helpful. [110] The retainer began in early March 2017. Mr ET’s instructions to Ms PU included her making requests to a number of agencies under the Privacy Act 1993, for the release of personal information that they held about him. [111] One such agenc...

8. LCRO 8/2024 HC v QG and VO (28 February 2025) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...an alleged business expense policy and to who had allegedly represented what to whom, if at all, about that policy and about compliance with it; (d) was in every sense a private matter between the parties about the conduct of their business. [110] In my view, the LCS would have had little, if any, reason to refer the matter to the Committee if it had treated the initial, ambiguous letter from the respondents as a report under r 2.8 of the Rules rather than a complaint (which it could h...

9. LCRO 73/2024 OR v SV (3 September 2024) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...November 2020 will. (e) Ms X’s impression was that the applicant had not made up her mind about the matter either. (f) The applicant did not instruct Ms X to progress the proposed change of ownership and she then terminated Ms X’s retainer. [110] In my view, there is nothing in this course of events to support the contention that the applicant had good reason to believe the respondent was acting for her in relation to the proposed property transfer transaction. Indeed, at the re...

10. 3-Strikes-Proactive-Release-OIA-Requests_Final_Part2.pdf [pdf, 19 MB]

    ...IN FO RM AT IO N AC T 19 82 Page 108 of 277 RE LE AS ED U ND ER T HE O FF IC IA L IN FO RM AT IO N AC T 19 82 Page 109 of 277 RE LE AS ED U ND ER T HE O FF IC IA L IN FO RM AT IO N AC T 19 82 Page 110 of 277 RE LE AS ED U ND ER T HE O FF IC IA L IN FO RM AT IO N AC T 19 82 3 Document type: Talking points Drafters: Sophie Klinger and Harry Smith Title: Talking Points - Reinstating three...