Search Results

1. GU v TI LCRO 258 / 2010 (19 December 2011) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...criticise his or her conduct. It is the means by which the Committee can most strongly express its condemnation of what a practitioner has done, backed up, if it sees fit, with a fine and remedial orders. [86] I am aware that this decision is under appeal, but the fact that section 156(1)(i) of the Act contains the two different word does indicate that it was not intended that these words should be considered to be synonymous. I have applied the comments of the Court in that decis...

2. Redruth v Dereham LCRO 154 / 2010 (10 November 2010) [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...the legal liability against all three lawyers. In respect of a claim against F, the Practitioner opined that a claim lay in tort, having identified relevant principles in the case of Connell v Odlun [1993] 2NZLR 257, a case where the Court of Appeal had concluded that a lawyer could owe a duty of care to a person not his client. [6] In later April the Applicant sought a further opinion, this time from Mr L of ME. This opinion supported the grounds for a claim against F in tort, whic...

3. Z v D LCRO 4 / 2008 (23 April 2009) [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...(such as an application for costs revision) need to have been taken before a right can be said to exist or be accrued. “Accrued right” is the phraseology used in s 20(e) of the former Acts Interpretation Act 1924. In this regard the Court of Appeal has stated that there has been no substantive change in meaning as between those two Acts: Claydon v A-G [2004] NZAR 16 (CA) per McGrath J at para 85. [21] It is my view that the applicants who had received a bill of costs but as at...

4. BW v NA LCRO 266/2012 and 269/2012 (9 June 2014) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...broad powers to conduct his/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 arising from Mr BW’s Application [33] Simply put, Mr BW...

5. CS v HT and LM LCRO 25/2013, 50/2013 and 51/2013 (24 June 2014) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...the prospects of success; and  neither Mr HT nor Mrs LM had advised him of the potential for a claim under the Family Protection Act. [35] He also alleged that Mr HT was seemingly uninterested in providing advice with regard to any potential appeal. This complaint is of course a new matter which was not addressed by the Standards Committee and therefore cannot be included in this review. This would include any complaint that neither Mr HT nor Mrs LM had advised him of the opt...

6. LS v TD LCRO 298/2012 (10 December 2014) [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...considers it cannot take the matter further. The LCRO has looked at the matter and has made a finding. Accordingly, Ms LS is now in the same position as if the matter had been the subject of specific consideration at the Committee level and then appealed the decision to the LCRO. Review [15] A review hearing was held in [city] on 13 November 2014. Mrs LS was represented by Mr QO and Mr TD by Mr JW. 4 Above n 2 at [8]. 5 Above n...

7. AF v BN LCRO 166 / 2011 (25 July 2013) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...that he had been unable to write up the books because he was ill and admitted that he should not have certified to the Law Society that the accounts complied with the Society’s rules. [47] The charges against the solicitor were made out and on appeal the Court held that:9 7 B v Medical Council [2005] 3 NZLR 810 (HC) at 811. 8 Re a Solicitor [1972] 2 All ER 811. 9 Above n7 at 815. 9 on the charge of failing to keep th...

8. [2017] NZEmpC 161 Aslam v Transportation Auckland Corp Ltd [pdf, 284 KB]

   ...outcome. The Court or the Authority must do so objectively, that is ensuring that they do not substitute their own decisions for those of the fair and reasonable employer in all the circumstances. [50] In considering that assessment, the Court of Appeal in A Ltd v H said:3 [46] It is apparent that the effect of the statute is that there may be a variety of ways of achieving a fair and reasonable result in a particular case. As the Court in Angus observed, the requirement is for...

9. FE v MB LCRO 328/2012 (23 February 2015) [pdf, 70 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 [32] Mr FE and his lawyer attended a review hearing in [city...

10. Moctezuma v Chase-Seymour [2013] NZIACDT 40 (26 June 2013) [pdf, 152 KB]

    ...power to regulate its own procedure (section 49(1)). However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [94] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: [T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the right...