Search Results

1. Pokere v Bodger - Ōuri 1A3 (2022) 459 Aotea MB 210 (459 AOT 210) [pdf, 585 KB]

   ...responsibilities to protect that taonga. Should that taonga be well protected, the mana is enhanced, and at the same time, if that taonga is not well protected the associated mana becomes unstable and is diminished, or even taken away. The forms of protection given would affirm mana to be retained, to be bequeathed, to be carefully managed, to be cultivated; it would be developed, nourished, cared for 459 Aotea MB 219 ka pīkauria, ka tohea, ka pakangahia taua t...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. 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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. EBT v Mudaliar [2015] NZIACDT 92 (16 October 2015) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...interest against Mr Mudaliar’s interests (A v Professional Conduct Committee at [82]). [25] 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. [26] Dishonesty points to the need to remove a practitioner from a pro...

10. LCRO 188/2019 QK v RJ (13 May 2020) [pdf, 116 KB]

    ...the Executors) refused to provide her with a copy of her mother’s will and did not answer or acknowledge Mr YG’s letters of 6 and 10 September 2019. Ms QK’s complaint concludes: I would appreciate your intervention so my position may be protected. [7] In a letter dated 14 October 2019, Ms QK asked NZLS’ Complaints Service for confirmation that her complaint had been received. She was told it had been. Ms QK was invited to provide a copy of the will, and to identify the la...