Search Results

1. Otago Standards Committee v Duff [2022] NZLCDT 4 (21 January 2022) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...[4] In determining proper penalty orders to be made against a practitioner, the Tribunal begins with an assessment of the gravity of the misconduct itself.2 [5] We remind ourselves that the purpose of penalty and disciplinary proceedings is a protective not punitive one. The LCA records in s 3 its purposes which include the maintenance of public confidence in the provision of legal services and the protection of consumers of legal services. Both limbs of the protective purposes e...

2. BORA Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...the Bill excludes damages as a remedy in respect of a public law action against the relevant Minister alleging failure to comply with a protocol. This clause affects the substantive law and does not in my view fall within the ambit of s 27(3) which protects procedural rights. Accordingly, clause 23(3) of the Bill is not inconsistent with s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights. Yours faithfully Jane Foster Associate Crown Counsel In addition to the general disclaimer for all documents on th...

3. BORA Ngaa Rauru Kiitahi Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...Bill excludes damages as a remedy in respect of a public law action against the relevant Minister alleging failure to comply with the protocols. This clause affects the substantive law and does not in my view fall within the ambit of s 27(3) that protects procedural rights. Accordingly, clause 22(3) of the Bill is not inconsistent with s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights. Yours faithfully Jane Foster Associate Crown Counsel In addition to the general disclaimer for all documents on this w...

4. BORA Policing (Storage of Youth Identifying Particulars) Amendment Bill [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...• Section 21 of the Bill of Rights Act affirms the right of everyone to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, whether of the person, property, correspondence or otherwise. Where actions do constitute a search or seizure, s 21 protects only against those searches or seizures that are “unreasonable” in the circumstances. • In our view, despite the clarifications being made by new ss 34 and 34A, the search and seizure powers in ss 32 or 33 are still reasonable...

5. BORA Rongowhakaata Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...of Rights Act. Any such limitation on s 27(2) would, however, be justified under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act as a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlement of the claims. 6. In so far as the section could be said to limit reliance on the protection of the rights of minorities under s 20 of the Bill of Rights Act, it would be justified under s 5 on the same basis. 7. The United Nations Human Rights Committee upheld a similar exclusion under the 1992 Fisheries Settlement, also a...

6. BORA Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...of the Bill is to ensure that financial services are provided in a way which promotes the confident and informed participation of businesses, investors, and consumers. To achieve this, the Bill makes amendments to ensure that the conduct and client-care obligations of financial service providers and the regulation of financial markets remain fit for purpose. Consistency of the Bill with the Bill of Rights Act Section 14 – Freedom of Expression 5. Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act...

7. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Horsley [2014] NZLCDT 9 [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...standing as disgraceful or dishonourable; and/or (b) is conduct that occurred at a time the practitioner was providing regulated services and is conduct that contravened Rule 11.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (misleading or deceptive conduct); and/or (c) is conduct unconnected with the provision of regulated services but which would justify a finding that he is not a fit and proper person or is otherwise unsuited to engage in pract...

8. Otago Standards Committee v Rayner [2014] NZLCDT 62 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...card and the information required to use it, the practitioner was in breach of the fundamental obligation of a lawyer under s 4(c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (“Act”) to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care and s 4(d) to protect the interests of his client. (e) Acting as a barrister for M at the time, was in breach of the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (“LCACC”), in particular rules 5.1, 5.2 an...

9. LCRO 159/2017 YB v WD [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...client informed about progress, and consult the client about steps to be taken to implement the client’s instructions.5 [31] Lawyers are also required to act competently. Rule 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules) states that:6 In providing regulated services to a client, a lawyer must always act competently and in a timely manner consistent with the terms of the retainer and the duty to take reasonable care. (b) Did Y...

10. [2020] NZREADT 41 - Bellis v Real Estate Agents Authority (9 September 2020) [pdf, 274 KB]

    ...had represented to him that the QV valuation did not include the walnut trees, which was blatantly false. He claimed that this was in breach of Mr Davison’s obligations under r 6.4 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”). [15] Mr Bellis claimed that Mr Davison was responsible for checking information he receives from a vendor for accuracy before he passed it on to a potential buyer. He claimed that as Mr Davison deals i...