5438 items matching your search terms
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2019] NZREADT 24 READT 052/18 IN THE MATTER OF An appeal under section 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN AKHIL CHAND CHAUDHARY Appellant AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 414) First Respondent AND SUBARMANI RAJAN and SUMINTRA DEVI Second Respondents On the papers Tribunal: Hon P J Andrews, Chairperson Ms C Sandelin, Member Mr N O
...interests.”5 [37] The Committee said the following: [14] … [I]t is important to note that lawyers are also private individuals free to pursue their own interests and give their time outside of their employment. … While there is a definite need to protect against conflicts of interest, the Standards Committee was not of the view that there was evidence before it which demonstrated that there was a ‘tacit’ agreement between Mr OQ and Mr LD or that the two were acting together...
...report are easily fixed; some will require long term evolution, investment and potentially, political consideration. It is crucially important that PDS, the Ministry of Justice, the Secretary, the Legal Services Commissioner, and the Crown generally carefully consider what exactly PDS is to do and to be. That is a policy question as much as a question of strategy and operations, but the answer to that question – the “Why” – will determine to a large extent what happens next....
...I perceive to contain remedies for the very type of behaviour which in other circumstances might give rise to exemplary damages. However, those will be issues which the applicant wishes to have for reconsideration. Conclusions [21] I have carefully considered the submissions of counsel in the context of the circumstances of this case. I have also considered the well reasoned determination of the member of the Authority in declining removal. I find that I am in agreement with...
...High Court Judge16 [32] A distinguishing feature between Mr Hong and Mr Eichelbaum is the Tribunal’s confidence that the behaviour was unlikely to be repeated by the latter practitioner. This issue weighed strongly in the assessment of public protection, and “specific deterrence” principles, which were addressed in the Tribunal’s decision. . Thus, concern as to insight is a common factor in the two decisions. 17 “….. we discussed general and specific deterrence. Whi...
...Sionepulu the responsibility for bringing and prosecuting these misconceived and baseless proceedings. We take into account also the fact that Ms Sionepulu is the sole breadwinner of the family. It is safe to assume that she also carries the burden of caring for her child. Many of the complaints made by the defendants attach to Mr Butler, not to Ms Sionepulu. Yet it is she who will be legally liable to pay any costs award. She and her young child will bear the burden of Mr Butler’s...
...Standards Committee 1 upheld complaints against two practitioners, Mr Keith (P1) and Mr Ddinbych (P2). [2] The Committee found P1 had wrongfully terminated the retainer with the Applicant in breach of Rule 4.2 of the Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care Rules, and that this constituted unsatisfactory conduct. The Committee determined that the finding of unsatisfactory conduct recorded against his professional file, and an apology, were a sufficient penalty. It declined to consi...
...range of situations in which a vehicle must be seized and impounded. Given that the person whose vehicle has been impounded or driver licence has been suspended may subsequently be prosecuted for an offence, we have considered whether the right to protection from double jeopardy, affirmed in s 26(2) of the Bill of Rights Act, is engaged. • We note that the former Attorney General’s s 7 report on the Act considered whether those provisions for mandatory vehicle impoundment and mand...
...be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantial security may, in effect, prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. An order having that effect should only be made after careful consideration and in a case in which the claim has little chance of success. Access to the court’s for a genuine plaintiff is not likely to be denied. Of course, the interests of defendants must also be weighed. They must be pr...
...be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantial security may, in effect, prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim. An order having that effect should be made only after careful consideration and in a case in which the claim has little chance of success. Access to the Courts for a genuine plaintiff is not lightly to be denied. Of course, the interest of defendants must also be weighed. They must be prote...