Search Results

1. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v Beacham [2012] NZLCDT 29 [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...interest (which include “protection of the public”), to maintain professional standards, to impose sanctions on a practitioner for breach of his/her duties, and to provide scope for rehabilitation in appropriate cases. Tribunals are required to carefully consider alternatives to striking off a practitioner. If the purposes of imposing disciplinary sanctions can be achieved short of striking off then it is the lesser alternative that should be adopted as the proportionate response....

2. Canterbury Standards Committee v a practitioner [2015] NZLCDT 44 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...context he submitted that ‘fraudulent’ had a wider meaning than fraud in a criminal sense. He queried why otherwise would the word ‘criminal’ be used in the rule. He argued that narrowing the interpretation of the word would reduce the protection of the public and would undermine the purpose of the legislation as provided for in ss 3 and 4 of the Act for the maintenance of public confidence. 7 [27] The Tribunal has determined that it is not necessary to resolve the ar...

3. WC v AU LCRO 218 / 2012 (6 June 2013) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...not the role of the Standards Committee to enforce standards of mere etiquette, it would seem usual to raise these matters with the other counsel not only as a matter of courtesy, but also to ensure that the interests of the client are properly protected and there is no duplication (such as the two Legal Aid applications) or confusion. [35] It is clear that there is no property in a client and that a client may change lawyers should they choose to do so. It was therefore not inapp...

4. MBL v Shadforth [2016] NZIACDT 31 (16 June 2016) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...licensed immigration advisers are dishonest, and not held to account by the Immigration Advisers Authority. It gave the complainant’s practice as an example of dishonesty, and suggested persons engaging licensed immigration advisers should take care so they do not engage dishonest advisers, which is a real risk. [4] Accordingly, the breach of confidentiality was in an aggravating context, where Ms Shadforth behaved irresponsibly and unprofessionally. [5] Imposing sanctions in a case o...

5. Bullent v Standing [2012] NZIACDT 76 (28 September 2012) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...ensure that appropriate standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned.” [32] The statutory purpose is achieved by considering at least four factors which materially bear upon maintaining appropriate standards of conduct: [32.1] Protecting the public: Section 3 of the Act states “The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice ...” [32.2] Demanding minimum standards of conduct: Dentice v Valuers Registrati...

6. LCRO 111/2015 UA v VB (12 May 2017) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...assumed facts recited above are incorrect. Mr VB was not instructed until Mr and Mrs UA wanted to sell the property. 4 Hereafter the vendor will be referred to as Mr XF. 3  The title to the property was complex with numerous interests protected by numerous documents registered against the title.  Mr XF had reserved an option to buy the property back if the subdivision could not be effected.  Mr VB was first instructed when Mr and Mrs UA wanted to sell the pr...

7. [2018] NZEnvC 145 Federated Farmers of New Zealand Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...Holdings Limiled [1999] NZRMA 468 at 474. "Reference" is easily substituted with "appeal" to reflect current terminology. Citing Countdown Properties (Northlands) Ltd v Dunedin Cily Council [1994] NZRMA 145; Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc v Southland District Council [1997] NZRMA 408. Option 5 Incorporated v Marlborough District Council (2009) 16 ELRNZ 1 at [15]. 5 Notices of motion and evidence [11) I have considered the Council's notice of mo...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Yoo [2016] NZLCDT 35 [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...responsibility, has led to him setting matters in order and we will refer more specifically to that under the discussion of “mitigation”. [5] We record, as has been said many times, that the purposes of penalty in the disciplinary jurisdiction is to protect the public, to maintain the standards of the legal profession, to maintain the reputation of the profession and the public’s confidence in it as a result. [6] The starting point for assessing proper penalty is to consid...

9. [2022] NZEnvC 152 Ngai Taiwhakaea v Whakatane District Council [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...possibility of settlement where compromise could have been reasonably expected; and 10 DFC NZ Ltd v Bielby [1991] 1 NZLR 587. [11] 6 (e) where a party takes a technical or unmeritorious point. The High Court in Environmental Protection Authority v BW Offshore Singapore Pte Ltd11 signalled a potential departure from the Bielby factors in favour of the High Court costs principles. However, this Court has identified concerns with the approach in BW Offshore and has a...

10. NG & OG v JS [2024] NZDT 33 (18 January 2024) [pdf, 151 KB]

    ...means that, during contractual negotiations, a seller is generally under no obligation to ensure that the other party is fully informed about the transaction, and the seller need not disclose all material facts/defects about the goods. Further, the protections given by the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and the Fair Trading Act 1986 to purchasers who purchase from suppliers in trade are not available to a private purchaser. However, the law of misrepresentation set out in s35(1)(a) of the Co...