Search Results

1. DZ v WA LCRO 199 / 2010 (6 October 2011) [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...he has been falsely billed. The outcome sought by the Complainant is that he does not want the Practitioner to send him any more demands for money. [12] In accordance with the normal practice of this office, the Standards Committee file was requested, and a copy of the review application was forwarded to the Practitioner who provided further comments. [13] The parties have consented to the review being determined „on the papers‟ pursuant to section 206 of the Lawyers and Conv...

2. GC v OSC LCRO 113 / 2011 (2 November 2011) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...considered by the Disciplinary Tribunal under Section 152 (2)(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act). [3] UJ and UI became clients of the law firm in April 2009. The letter of engagement sent to them stated, “The work we are to perform is to represent you in the ( - ) District Court in relation to Order for Examination of a Judgement Debtor”. Other standard clauses in the Letter of Engagement informed them that the “aim was to protect your 2 interests...

3. Sanquhar v Aberdeenshire LCRO 201 / 2009 (17 February 2010) [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...say proves their allegation. This includes a letter of 13 February 2009 from a Mr YY (stating that he dropped the agreement into the offices of Aberdeenshire ZZ and Co) and a further letter from him of 9 July 2009 (stating that he had made all requested amendments to the agreement). [10] I note that I am able to take these letters into account as evidence by s 207 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. However, I accord them very little weight. In respect of the 13 February letter it...

4. Ferness v Lampeter LCRO 178 / 2010 (18 November 2010) [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...Act 2006 provides that every application for review must be lodged with the Legal Complaints Review Officer within 30 working days after the determination, requirement, or order is made, or the direction is given, or the function or power is performed or exercised, by the Standards Committee (or by any person on its behalf or with its authority). The last day for making an application for review in this matter was 7 September 2010. Mr Ferness’s review application was received th...

5. I v P LCRO 18 / 2009 (11 February 2009) [pdf, 18 KB]

   ...Complainant I also appears to be of the view that the Committee failed to properly deal with the complaint that Lawyer P dismissed a proposal of Complainant I regarding the investment of estate funds. [15] The Lay Observer in commencing his enquiry requested the Law Society to comment on the treatment of the complaint, how it viewed the allegations of Complainant I, and how the matters are dealt with by the relevant professional rules. The Society responded by letter dated 16 March...

6. Thompson v Love [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...Apron Flashing [14] Mr Love admits that the apron flashing terminated behind the exterior cladding but says that he did not install the apron flashing and that he followed proper construction practice. Mr Love says that the apron flashing forms part of the roof, which was installed by Carter Holt Harvey and that Carter Holt Harvey followed accepted trade practice at the time. Mr Love states that, at the time of construction, the apron flashings were not required to turn up at...

7. Te Runanga o Ngati Hine v Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi Special Aid [2014] Māori Appellate Court MB 133 (2014 APPEAL 133) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...date that fit within the above criteria and an estimate for future attendances in respect of the initial proceeding. On receipt of these, confirmed that he would then make the orders for payment from the Special Aid Fund. [5] The Court has since requested amended invoices which include only the attendances of the Māori Land Court and not attendances in respect of this Court. No application for appeal has been made in respect of Judge Ambler’s decision to date and orders for paym...

8. Bosman v ACC [2011] NZACA 1 [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...receive [that] compensation immediately before the 1st day of July 1992” (as required by s 149(1) of the 1992 Act). [20] The decision was upheld by the District Court, High Court and Court of Appeal, finally on 2 November 2007. Reconsideration Request [21] On 8 December 2007, and notwithstanding the Court of Appeal’s decision, Mr Miller wrote to ACC asking that it reconsider application of s 149 of the 1992 Act to Mr Bosman. Letters from Mr Bosman’s family were attached....

9. WHT Claims under $20k - Chair's Directions [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...reach a decision on the claim on the basis of the written material provided by the parties. 2.3 The Tribunal can make a final decision on the claim even if there is failure by any party to comply with these Directions, or failure to provide information within the time allowed. Therefore not participating after being served with the claim documents does not prevent orders being made against that party. 2.4 Where a hearing is required, parties will appear in person, or with leave by...

10. Youth Court - 15 point assessment of a youth justice system [pdf, 98 KB]

    ...who commit crime dealt with outside of the court system; is there a diversion system in place to deal with less serious crime outside of the court system? • Is there an option to discharge a child without a formal criminal record if he or she performs well in court? Rating: Comments: 5. Provision for (partial) delegation of decision making to families, victims and communities • Are families, victims and communities given the opp...