Search Results

1. LCRO 162/2015 and 66/2016 IA v CMR (31 July 2017) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...duties, or that interests or duties were breached. [80] Mr IA does not accept that he should have advised Mr and Mrs CMR to seek independent advice. He says that the terms of engagement were adequate in the circumstances, and provided for the protection of Mr and Mrs CMR’s interests. [81] Mr IA remains firmly convinced that apparent bias precluded the costs assessor from being involved in inquiries relating to him. [82] In support of his application Mr IA provided a letter sett...

2. Trustees of the JS & AJ Hamilton Family Trust v Complaints Assessment Committee 403, Amelia (Margaret) Reeve, Fleur Allinson & Kim Franklin [2017] NZREADT 54 [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...Earthquake Commission (“EQC”) as to earthquake recovery work carried out after the Christchurch earthquakes, before they settled the purchase. The substantive decision: breaches of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”) The trustees’ sale and purchase agreement, and the second sale and purchase agreement [11] On the complaints which relate to the trustees’ appeals against the Committee’s orders for relief, the Comm...

3. Ha v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 412) and Griffiths [2018] NZREADT 57 [pdf, 369 KB]

   ...arrangement that deprives a seller of real estate of rights under a statutory regulation by which the interests of the class to which he belongs are protected. This engages the subject of whether a party is able to waive or contract out from statutory protections which were promulgated for the benefit of a class to which he or she belongs. [43] The authors of Burrows and Carter Statute Law in New Zealand make the following observations in regard to the limits of contracting out:11

4. AAD v ZZW LTD [2009] NZDT 9 (9 June 2009) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...requirement that AAD carry out her role with reasonable skill and care. [6] The Sharemilkers Agreements Act 1937 also applies. The Schedule to that Act sets out the minimum requirements of any Sharemilking Agreement that must be included to protect the interests of the parties. The Sharemilking Agreement in question was a standard form which followed the dispute resolution provisions set out in clauses 138-158 of that Schedule. [7] AAD was appointed to act as a...

5. Auckland Standards Committee No. 2 v Kennelly [2017] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...to reflect on his fitness to practise or as to bring his profession into disrepute. (s 241(c) of the Act). The charge relates to breaches of s 112(1)(a) and (c) of the Act, breaches of the Trust Account Regulations and of the Conduct and Client Care Rules. Particulars of the charge are annexed as Appendix 1. [2] The Tribunal was satisfied that the respondent’s admission of the charge was appropriate. It granted the applicant leave to withdraw the alternative charges of miscon...

6. LCRO 104/2020 LN v RT (30 September 2020) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) to conduct the review on the basis of all the information available on review if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [12] I record that having carefully read the materials, there are no additional issues or questions in my mind that necessitate any further submission from either party. On the basis of the information available I have concluded that the review can be adequately deter...

7. Chief Executive, Ministry for Culture and Heritage - Tāonga Tūturu found at Plimmerton (2012) 283 Aotea MB 166 (283 AOT 166) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY FOR CULTURE AND HERITAGE V TE RUNUNGA O TOA RANGATIRA INC MLC 283 Aotea MB 166 [4 May 2012] IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT 283 Aotea MB 166 (283 AOT 166) A201100012458 UNDER Sections 11 & 12, Protected Objects Act 1975 IN THE MATTER OF Tāonga Tūturu found at Plimmerton BETWEEN CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY FOR CULTURE AND HERITAGE Applicant AND TE RUNUNGA O TOA RANGATIRA INC First Interested Party AND...

8. LCRO 215/2016 KP v VN (31 July 2018) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...existed between Mr KP and Ms VN and/or the firm, it is not possible to say with certainty that the rules in Chapter 8 of the Rules were engaged. [47] It is impossible to reconcile Mr KP’s position with the information available on review. Having carefully considered all of that information, including giving careful consideration to Mr KP’s comments at the review hearing, it has not been possible to identify any reason to reverse or modify the Committee’s decision. Even with...

9. Auckland Standards Committee v Van der Zanden [2014] NZLCDT 54 [pdf, 78 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....

10. Wellington Standards Committee v Laglolago [2015] NZLCDT 43 [pdf, 27 KB]

    ...acceptance, remorse and/or insight. However, in the absence of evidence that other areas of her practice were of concern, we were reluctant to impose a restriction on her practising on her own account. Certainly, there was evidence that she kept careful records, and applied herself with diligence. which reiterated the principle that while a suspension is punitive, its purpose is protection, both of the public generally and the reputation of the profession. Daniels went on to n...