Search Results

1. Cavanagh v Nassiep [2012] NZIACDT 38 (31 July 2012) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...practice. The letter suggested Mr Cavanagh simply needed to wait for Immigration New Zealand to process his application. The letter also had handwritten notes saying points had not been awarded for Mr Cavanagh being a diesel mechanic, and he should appeal. However, Ms Nassiep could not assist as she was not in New Zealand. [20.5] Ms Nassiep sent an email to Immigration New Zealand dated 24 November 2010. It referred to Mr Cavanagh’s qualifications, and said she was leaving New Ze...

2. HK v YS LCRO 64/2012 (17 February 2015) [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing [14] Both parties attended and were represented by counsel...

3. IO v SJ LCRO 84 / 2010 (1 February 2012) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...to take any further action pursuant to Section 138(1)(f) of the Act. [11] This section confers a discretionary power on a Standards Committee to take no further action if there is, “in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal, other than the right to petition the House of Representatives or to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, and that it would be reasonable for the person agreed to 4 exercise”. The Committee’s decision appears to have related to t...

4. WK v YL LCRO 132/2014 (26 Aug 2015) [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a standards committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Issue [39] Ms WK appears dissatisfied that Ms YL refused to relea...

5. SW v RD LCRO 2/2012 (24 September 2015) [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Issues [14] Lawyers owe obligations according to a strict hierarch...

6. NA v AL LCRO 68 / 2011 (10 April 2012) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...[12] They also considered that there had been a lack of consideration by the Committee to the complaint of excessive overcharging by the Practitioner. They added that no importance had been placed on the advice given by the Practitioner not to appeal the initial injunction and overall they felt that their responses to the Practitioner’s submissions had been “virtually overlooked” by the Committee particularly with regard to their financial situation. [13] This review has be...

7. IH v QU LCRO 93 / 2011 (22 June 2012) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...considered that the complaints process had been neither thorough nor fair. They therefore sought a full review of the Standards Committee investigation and determination. Review [15] A review by this Office is broad and is not the equivalent of an appeal. The LCRO has a discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review with regard to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. In addition, the LCRO must come to an independent view based on...

8. SM v ML LCRO 79 / 2011 (22 November 2012) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...to be a reference to section 138(1)(f) of the Act which provides that a Standards Committee may determine to take no further action if, in the opinion of the Standards Committee “there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal, other than the right to petition the House of Representatives or to make a complaint to an Ombudsman, that it would be reasonable for the person aggrieved to exercise.” [31] However, SM’s complaint cannot be determined on these g...

9. BU v YA LCRO 153 / 2010 (21 April 2011) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...the Committee does not understand the law. [19] He considers that in evaluating the complaint concerning the lodgement of the Notice of Claim, the Committee has applied the wrong test. He refers to a decision of Simperinghan v Martin (Court of Appeal) Wellington, CA 5/95, 2 June 1995. He notes that the requirement established by this case is that before lodging a caveat, a solicitor must have an “honest belief” that there is a registrable interest. [20] With regard to the ma...

10. Chaiyapoom v Hu [2014] NZIACDT 78 (09 September 2014) [pdf, 143 KB]

    ...Nature of Legal Liability [12] The Registrar requested that the Tribunal delay determining the complaint due to issues raised by the District Court’s decision in Geldenhuys v Yap DC Christchurch, CIV 2013-009-001684, 28 January 2014. A successful appeal against that decision Immigration Advisers Authority v Yap [2014] NZHC 1215 followed. The Tribunal gave the parties the opportunity to make submissions following the High Court’s decision. Only the Registrar did so. [13] The Registra...