Search Results

1. LCRO 202/2016 and 6/2017 JI v ZY [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr JI has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee [X] which determined there had been unsatisfactory conduct on the part of Mr JI for his failure to recognise and protect Ms ZY’s right to claim an interest in land registered in the names of her husband, Mr WV, and his mother, Mrs XU. The Committee censured Mr JI, ordered him to apologise to Ms ZY, and to pay a fine of $2,500 to the New Zealand Law...

2. DN v EO LCRO 263/2013 (31 August 2015) [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...however, that 5 Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s 36(1)(c). 6 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, s 55. 7 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Practice Rules) Regulations 2008, reg 4. 7 consumer protection and promotion of public confidence are statutory purposes shared by s 3(1) of the REAA and s 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. [35] I am unable to discern an improper purpose from a close, objective reading of Mr EO’s objection. M...

3. Complaints Assessment Committee 404 v Hawkins [2017] NZREADT 35 [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...make it clear that he acted for, and owed fiduciary duties to, the vendor. In this case, Mr Hawkins failed to explain the implications of his being the vendor. [27] We do not accept Mr Smith’s submission that the need for a licensee to take care when dealing with friends has only recently been made clear to licensees. It is not new. The need for licensees to adopt a formal approach when dealing with friends (if anything in the interest of ensuring clarity as to the details of the...

4. [2022] NZEnvC 093 Waimea Plains Landscape Preservation Society Inc v Gore District Council [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...filed its response to the Society’s application on 19 April 2022, submitting that costs should lie where they fall. They submit the following in response:4 (a) the Council met all procedural directions and requirements for this matter. It was careful to conduct its case in a way that would not unnecessarily lengthen the hearing; (b) all aspects of the Council’s case were relevant to the matters to be determined by the Court. The case advanced by the Council was consistent...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Brill [2022] NZLCDT 13 (16 May 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...Wellington District Law Society [2011] NZLR 850. 3 [5] Having reached this point, we then stood back and considered whether the overall penalty to be imposed in this case met the purposes of the legislation. That is, was it sufficient to protect the public, maintain the reputation of the profession and uphold professional standards. Those are the primary purposes of disciplinary sanctions rather than any punitive purpose, although it is recognised that orders may well have a...

6. Kaufusi v Tangilanu [2014] NZIACDT 54 (24 April 2014) [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...complaint on wider grounds, but the Registrar identified material that supports the following grounds of complaint: [4.1] The adviser breached the Licensed Immigration Advisers Code of Conduct 2010, in that: [4.1.1] She breached her duties of care, diligence, respect and professionalism under the Code of Conduct, in performing her services and carrying out her instructions (clause 1.1(a) and (b)); [4.1.2] Breached her duties in relation to written agreements and fees (clauses 1.5(a)...

7. Crosswell v Auckland City Council [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...involvement and responsibility based on the information available to the Tribunal, even though he did not participate in the adjudication hearing. All parties accepted that Mr Malone was the builder of the property and therefore he owed a duty to use care and skill in carrying out the building work and to ensure that the approved documents for construction contained sufficient information. The Tribunal found that Mr Malone’s carelessness and negligence was the major reason for the d...

8. Ringwood v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 44 [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...LACK OF MAINTENANCE? ......................................................................................... 14 WHEN WAS THE HOUSE BUILT? .............................................................. 15 DID THE DEVELOPERS BREACH THEIR DUTY OF CARE TO THE CLAIMANT? ................................................................................................. 18 WAS THE COUNCIL NEGLIGENT IN ISSUING THE CCC AND IF SO DID THIS NEGLIGENCE CAUSE LOSS? ..................................

9. BORA Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill [pdf, 25 KB]

   ...interest of the intrusion on the particular right protected by the Bill of Rights Act; 3. The limits sought to be placed on the application of the Bill of Rights Act provision in the particular case; and 4. The effectiveness of the intrusion in protecting the interests put forward to justify those limits." This passage emphasises that the assessment under s 5 BORA must be a nuanced and context-specific one. 7. Ministry of Justice officials have indicated that the Government con...

10. DA v EB LCRO 7/2013 (26 August 2014) [pdf, 125 KB]

    ...paid it into a trust account, as she has since accepted she should have done. By thwarting the operation of Regulation 9, Ms DA cannot be said to have breached it. While that is a logical outcome, it is not satisfactory in that it side-steps the protections Regulation 9 provides to lawyers’ clients. [77] The Committee was also correct to find that Ms DA had breached Regulation 10, which makes provision for fees and disbursements to be paid in advance of a practitioner renderin...