Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Clews [2014] NZLCDT 49 [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...ones. The first involved a breach of client privilege in circumstances which could have had very serious consequences for the client. The second charge arose when Mr Clews approached a former client in prison, obtained his authority to uplift his files from the current lawyer, when he had just been found guilty of unsatisfactory conduct in respect of that client. Thus he acted where there was a conflict between his interests and that of the client, who was the same client in respec...

2. DOP v Nelson (Application for In-Court Media Coverage) [2013] NZHRRT 13 [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...whether the application was opposed and if so, the reasons for the opposition. The Chairperson would then decide whether to grant or decline the application on the papers or convene a formal hearing or telephone conference. 2 [3] The responses filed by the parties have provided no grounds for the convening of a formal hearing or of a telephone conference. The application is therefore to be dealt with on the papers. Position of the Director [4] By memorandum dated 22 March 2013...

3. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Peters [2012] NZLCDT 18 [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...through. Mr Peters then 3 pleaded guilty to the alternative charge of unsatisfactory conduct, and that was accepted by the Standards Committee which did not pursue the matter on the basis of misconduct. Discussion [7] In an affidavit filed with the Tribunal by Mr Peters’ client, who was the complainant in this matter, that client said he had “made it quite clear that I wanted to appeal”. Mr Peters now accepts that his client did indicate that he wished to app...

4. FE v VF LCRO 59 / 2011 (7 September 2011) [pdf, 58 KB]

   ...be adequately determined in their absence and that the parties have consented. I confirm that the parties have consented to this matter being determined on the basis of the material available. That material has included the Standards Committee file plus all information provided by the parties for the review. Background 2 [3] On 14 November 2009 the Applicant received notice from the NZ Transport Agency that his licence was suspended immediately for a period of three mo...

5. GC v OSC LCRO 113 / 2011 (2 November 2011) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...BETWEEN GC of [South Island] Applicant AND OTAGO STANDARDS COMMITTEE of South Island Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION [1] UJ and UI filed a complaint with the New Zealand Law Society in April 2010 about GC, (the Practitioner) who is a partner in a law firm that provided legal services to them. It was alleged that the Practitioner had terminated his retainer with the firm...

6. N v K LCRO 03 / 2009 (3 February 2009) [pdf, 17 KB]

   ...application review was made to this office on 9 January 2009. Ms K responded to that application Ms K on 4 February 2009. Ms N replied to that response from Ms on 15 February 2009. This review was conducted on the basis of that correspondence and the file of the Standards Committee which was also made available to me. The parties have consented to this matter being considered without a 2 formal hearing and therefore in accordance with s 206(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act...

7. Tabram v Slater [pdf, 24 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: Tabram & Anor v Slater & Ors File No: TRI 2007-100-000041/ DBH 05001 Court: WHT Adjudicator: S Pezaro Date of Decision: 17 April 2009 Background The claimants, Mr and Mrs Tabram, filed a claim in the Tribunal for damages arising from weathertightness defects to their property. Their claim was for damages in contract based on the sale and purchase agreement and in tort against the first respondents, Mr and Mrs Slater (Slaters), who built the home and...

8. Gemmell v Gemmell - Mohaka A4 [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 657 (2015 APPEAL 657) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...themselves, failing which they were to file submissions. Counsel were not able to resolve costs themselves. This decision therefore addresses their submissions in relation to costs on the appeal. Submissions of the parties [2] Mr Wenley, for Arthur, filed an application for costs dated 8 June 2015. Arthur seeks costs against his brother, Samuel Gemmell, on the basis that Arthur was largely successful on appeal. His actual costs on appeal are said to be $10,104.30, though Mr We...

9. Bosman v ACC [2011] NZACA 1 [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...case manager) the appellant sought coverage under the ARCI Complex Personal Injury (interim) Regulations 1994 (“CPI Regulations”). Coverage under the CPI Regulations was later accepted. Down to December 2000, no relevant review application was filed as to the quantum of any compensation payable, or the legislative basis for any of those payments. [14] On 21 November 2000 ACC issued a decision as to the appellant’s care entitlements. The appellant (by counsel) sought a review of...

10. Manchester Securities Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 17 [pdf, 86 KB]

    ...SECURITIES LIMITED – Unit 12A, 196 Hobson Street, Auckland ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL [1] Manchester Securities Limited is the owner of unit 12A, 196 Hobson Street. It has filed a claim under s 15 of the Weathertight Homes Resolutions Services Act 2006 in relation to alterations to the unit that were carried out in 2002 and 2003. Both the assessor and the chief executive concluded that the claim was not eligibl...