Search Results

1. [2022] NZIACDT 1 - ZI v Wan (19 January 2022) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...on 27 June. [18] On 23 September 2019, Immigration NZ declined the residence application. It was not satisfied that the investment funds had been legally earned. The letter advised the complainant that she could appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) within 42 days of certain days. [19] Mr Wan then filed a guardian visitor visa application on behalf of the complainant on 28 January 2020. [20] Immigration NZ wrote to Mr Wan on 17 March 2020 raising certain issues...

2. Email of Breaker Bay and Moa Point Progressive Association 3 March 2017 [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...powers of the Association (clause 4 of the Constitution) are: The preservation and development of Breaker Bay and Moa Point as a residential community. To see that this preservation and development is well planned and aesthetically pleasing. To protect the interests of those in the area especially with regard to the provision of public services, health, care, and recreation. To improve and protect the unique environment and natural resources of the area. To create and foster a healthy com...

3. HIJ v RST and UVW (Publication) [2013] NZHRRT 41 [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...the Act the Tribunal prohibited publication of the names of all the parties and of any details which might identify them. That order was made on the grounds that identification of the parties could lead to the identification of the children whose care was the subject of the proceedings in the Family Court. [4] Having now heard all the evidence we are of the view that the interim order should be made final not only because the identity of the children might be revealed but also becaus...

4. LCRO 170/2020 KLM Limited v ND (30 March 2021) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...ND’s 11 May 2017 letter “contain[ed] a threat or threats”, that was “not the intention”. He explained if a person, such as Mr OE, “purport[ed] to act as an expert” beyond the person’s areas of expertise, then without the statutory protection of an arbitrator, that person may be liable for doing so. [103] Mr ND says in the end the parties agreed to refer the disputes to arbitration which is “a consensual process” and was not “forced” on [KLM] as it claims. Con...

5. Khan v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 6 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...interest against Ms Khetarpal’s interests (A v Professional Conduct Committee at [82]). [45] When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty that, short of exclusion from a profession, a person will not reoffend. This Tribunal must carefully weigh the circumstances. It is appropriate to place an element of considered trust in a practitioner who has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [46] Dishonesty points to the need to remove a practitioner from a pr...

6. J v Khetarpal [2016] NZIACDT 7 (22 January 2016) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...interest against Ms Khetarpal’s interests (A v Professional Conduct Committee at [82]). [45] When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty that, short of exclusion from a profession, a person will not reoffend. This Tribunal must carefully weigh the circumstances. It is appropriate to place an element of considered trust in a practitioner who has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [46] Dishonesty points to the need to remove a practitioner from a pr...

7. AN v DH LCRO 119/2015 (23 December 2015) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...decision, the Family Court’s comments that Ms AN’s “behaviour was out of character” and that the Court viewed “Ms AN’s withdrawal from the lawyer for Child panel as an unfortunate outcome”. [43] The Committee then focused on the consumer protection purposes of the Act saying: 8. Consumers of legal services need to be protected from behaviour which does not meet a lawyer’s professional obligations. Given there is an overriding professional duty to the court, the fact s...

8. SG v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 557 (5 July 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...plans were incorrect. SG alleges [the Architect] and S Ltd are liable for the encroachment. This claim is against S Ltd only and SG claims $30,000.00. 2. The issues I must decide are: a. Was S Ltd’s work completed with reasonable skill and care? b. If not, did S Ltd refuse, neglect or fail to remediate any failures? c. If not, was the failure of a substantial character? d. Is the amount claimed reasonable, taking into account SG’s obligation to mitigate his loss?...

9. Penzance v Runcorn LCRO 170 / 2009 (10 February 2010) [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...the nature of the relationship with Mr Penzance and various intimate details. [9] At the hearing Mr Penzance referred to the applicable legislation and professional rules. In particular he referred to r 8.7 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care which prohibit the use of confidential information. The rule states: 8.7 A lawyer must not use information that is confidential to a client (including a former client) for the benefit of any other person or of the lawyer. 8.7.1 A lawyer...

10. LCRO 137/2015 RR v BN, SF, WE, IM and PL (3 August 2018) [pdf, 112 KB]

    ...observation that Ms RR misapprehends how trusts can be formed, the logic that pervades Ms RR’s complaints and her application for review can fairly be described as deeply flawed. [29] In addition to the other materials available on review, I have carefully considered Ms RR’s comments at the review hearing. I have been unable to distil any standards issue that arises from any of the concerns Ms RR raises. It is noted that most if not all of her initial concerns have been consid...