Search Results

1. GT v TK LCRO 06 / 2011 (20 January 2012) [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...application of the relevant professional standards and procedures. It recognises that Standards Committees are made up of experienced lawyers, together with a non legally-qualified representative of the community. [15] In this case the Committee has carefully and extensively considered the Applicant’s complaints, applied the relevant rules to the facts and reached conclusions which are detailed and compelling. It rejected the Applicant’s complaints. [16] The Applicant has no...

2. Flight v Fletcher - Waipapa 1D 2B 3B [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 96 (2017 APPEAL 96) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...Introduction [1] For close to 30 years Mr Flight has been living in a house on Māori Freehold land administered by the Waipapa and Tokaanu Māori Lands Trust. Previously his parents and grandparents had occupied the house. Mr Flight cares for a dependent son with a chronic illness and cannot afford to live elsewhere. [2] In May 2016 Judge Harvey granted the trust a permanent injunction requiring Mr Flight to remove the dwelling. 1 The Judge described it as a very difficu...

3. XN v Ji [2019] NZIACDT 49 (19 July 2019) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...eventually lodged it with the agency on 5 November 2014. It was selected on 3 December 2014 for an invitation to apply, which was duly completed and lodged by Mr Ji on 13 March 2015. [10] Immigration New Zealand sent three letters to the complainant, care of Mr Ji, requiring further information. Mr Ji says he passed them onto another employee of NZ Business Migration. He states that “we” drafted the responses which were promptly sent to Immigration New Zealand.2 [11] Immi...

4. LCRO 171/2023 PF v DS (1 February 2024) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. The parties were invited to comment on this proposed course of action and neither of them objected to it. 7 [32] I record that having carefully read the complaint, the response to the complaint, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the application for review, there are no additional issues or questions in my mind that necessit...

5. 2025 NZPSPLA 057.pdf [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...relevant is the rehabilitation of the practitioner and as such the public interest in having a rehabilitated practitioner providing capable services. [32] Mr McKnight submits that there is no public interest in ending Mr Shepherd’s exemplary career in the security industry given its longevity, his voluntary services including at the Trust, and his rehabilitation. Also of relevance is that the events occurred in November 2019, August/September 2020 and January 2021 and therefore ar...

6. LCRO 160/2024 XT v YQ (27 June 2025) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...this review decision, expressed in simplified terms. 2 [3] The siblings1 were their mother’s children by her first marriage. [4] The mother’s second husband of 40 years was Mr X. Mr X held an enduring power of attorney (EPOA) for her care and welfare. [5] There was discord between Mr X and the siblings over decisions he made as enduring attorney during the last two years of Mrs X’s life. [6] One of the applicant’s sisters issued court proceedings to have herself a...

7. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v Heaphy [2014] NZLCDT 61 [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...lawyer and friend quite heavily. [5] Soon after the raid, Mr Heaphy discovered the extent and depth of the investigation by Immigration New Zealand, and the likelihood that it would lead to his client facing serious charges. He sought to urgently protect his client from an attack on his assets, which he saw arising from two sources, which will be referred to later. [6] The extent of Mr Porter’s own “panic” and motivation to shelter assets was the subject of considerable dispu...

8. Roos v Wang [2010] NZWHT Auckland 10 [pdf, 288 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2009-100-000053 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 10 BETWEEN CHARLES and HELEN MARIE ROOS Claimants AND THOMAS GANG WANG First Respondent AND FU HAO CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Second Respondent AND ADRIAN ROSS KIFF Third Respondent AND BAYS HOUSE INSPECTION SERVICES LIMITED Fourth Respondent Hearing: 2 February 2010 Final Submissions received: 26 February 2010 Appearances: Ms L Gerrard, Counsel for the Claimants. Mr

9. Harvey v CAC 10063 & Kelsall [2012] NZREADT 21 [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...journalist having telephoned the appellant, as the listing real estate agent, to ascertain whether there had been developments towards the sale of the property since the auction. [8] It is clear to us that the appellant, who gave evidence and was carefully cross- examined before us, has been proud of his record up till now of no complaints being made against him as a real estate agent for over 12 years. He is a highly successful agent selling about 45 to 50 houses per annum.

10. CAC10063 v Picknell [2013] NZREADT 41 [pdf, 57 KB]

    ...Picknell’s error is out of step with her general good character. [8] Ms Picknell’s counsel identified the four issues which are important in a sentence (see Real Estate Agents Authority v Lum-on [2012] NZREADT 47). These issues are: [a] Protection of the public; [b] Maintenance of standards; [c] Punishment; and [d] Rehabilitation of the agent. [9] Mr Collecutt submits on behalf of Ms Picknell that there is no need for protection of the public as there is no risk of a rep...