Search Results

1. [2020] NZIACDT 50 - KX v Ji (2 December 2020) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...complaint is, as he acknowledges, serious. He was dishonest in that he deceived his client on numerous occasions over a period of about 18 months as to the negative outcome of her immigration application. He did not tell her about the outcome or her consequential unlawful status. He did not inform her of the remedial action he undertook, nor its outcome. Indeed, the dishonesty was more than just failing to keep her informed. Mr Ji actively deceived the complainant about the statu...

2. LCRO 83/2024 AGM v CPF (24 March 2025) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...persuaded that the conduct breaches, when considered in their totality and by reference to the broad circumstances of the retainer, merit imposition of a fine in the sum of $5,000. [91] I consider a fine of $2,000 adequately meets the regulatory and consumer protection objectives. Costs [92] Ms AGM has had partial success with her review but in large part the finding of the Standards Committee has been confirmed. It is appropriate that Ms AGM be ordered to contribute to the costs of...

3. LCRO 3/2017 and LCRO 148/2017 McDonnell v LA (28 June 2019) [pdf, 436 KB]

   ...complaint by Ms LA about Ms McDonnell’s conduct whilst acting in the administration of Ms LA’s late father’s estate (Mr A). The Committee made a finding of unsatisfactory conduct against Ms McDonnell and imposed a fine together with other consequential orders (the liability determination). [3] The Committee’s second determination ordered publication of a summary of the matter including Ms McDonnell’s name. The Committee also ordered Ms McDonnell to pay compensation to...

4. LCRO 177/2021 FA v LL (14 March 2022) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...[143] Ms FA justifies the need for training, audit and oversight orders on grounds that others with whom Ms LL might deal in contentious matters, should not have to endure what she has. [144] Public confidence in the provision of legal services and consumer protection are principles which underpin the Act.19 The disciplinary process is designed to ensure that these values are upheld and maintained. [145] Nevertheless the disciplinary response for any breach by a lawyer of the Act,...

5. LCRO 159/2014 AB and RJ v OC and BR [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...making an award of compensation to his clients. [66] Mr EL misunderstands the nature of these awards. [67] In ordering that Mr BR pay a fine of $5,000, the Committee was exercising the power available to it, to impose a fine on a practitioner, consequential on its making a finding of unsatisfactory conduct against the practitioner. In doing so, it was expressing its disapproval of the conduct. [68] In ordering that Mr BR make contribution to the cost of its inquiry, the Committ...

6. [2020] NZREADT 51 - [Appellant] v Real Estate Agents Authority (21 October 2020) [pdf, 309 KB]

   ...submitted that as a consequence of not being advised as to the end date of the renewed agency agreement, he and [his wife] were locked in with the Agency for longer than they wished to be. He submitted that the Tribunal should recognise that the consumer-protection procedures and processes set out in the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (“the Act”) and the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”) were not followed. [36] He submitted...

7. LCRO 382/2013 SC v JT (30 June 2017) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...conduct finding is necessary or appropriate in the circumstances. [100] Conduct rules must be interpreted and applied fairly and sensibly,20 and with proper and careful attention to the protective purpose of the disciplinary jurisdiction, its consumer protection objectives, and the need to ensure consistency in the application of those rules. [101] It is important, when considering the conduct, to give a proper consideration to the circumstances which preceded Mr SC’s request of...

8. Director of Proceedings v Smith (Application for Final Non-Publication Orders) [2019] NZHRRT 32 [pdf, 695 KB]

   1 (1) ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS AND ANY OTHER IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE DEFENDANT. (2) ORDER PREVENTING SEARCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FILE WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE CHAIRPERSON OR OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2019] NZHRRT 32 Reference No. HRRT 092/2016 UNDER SECTION 50 OF THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER ACT 1994 BETWEEN DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF AND MRS SMITH DEFENDANT AT

9. OIA-119289.pdf [pdf, 20 MB]

   Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street DX SX10088 | Wellington T 04 918 8800 | F 04 918 8820 ContactUs@justice.govt.nz | www.justice.govt.nz 3 April 2025 Our ref: OIA 119289 Tēnā koe Official Information Act request: s228, s229A, and s240 of the Crimes Act 1961 Thank you for your email and attached letter of 10 February 2025, requesting information under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), relating to s228, s229A, and s240 of the Crimes Act 1961. Specifically, you requested

10. Lee v Whangarei District Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 5 [pdf, 154 KB]

    ...interest and costs. She seeks the same amount for remedial work from each respondent. Judge Sharp recorded that Ms Lee had been advised that her home needs to be fully re- clad at a cost of $601,096.75. Ms Lee sought $422,769.93 of that, plus consequential losses of $49,051.16 and general damages of $30,000 from CCS. (The amount of her counterclaim was also reported in the Court of Appeal judgment as $557,000.) Mr Beresford has submitted that the difference between $601,096, the am...