Search Results

1. RR v SU & TT LCRO 189/2013 (29 September 2015) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...trustee. [14] Ms RR also referred to complaints made separately by Mr RR about Mr TT’s conduct. Those were determined by a Committee in a separate decision,4 Standards Committee which is not the subject of this review. [15] The Committee requested and received responses from the lawyers, and instructed a costs assessor to review the lawyers’ fees. The Committee then considered all of the information it had received in the context of the relevant legislation before and af...

2. CD v EF LCRO 272/2014 (24 September 2015) [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing [22] Mr CD attended a review hearing in [City] on 4 May 2015. Ms EF was not required to attend, and the hearing proceeded in her absence. Further information [23] After the review hearing a request was made of Ms EF for further information about Mr CD’s instructions to her, which has been provided, passed on to Mr CD for comment, and considered in the course of this review along with his comments. Review Issue [24] I have...

3. A v ZN LCRO 321/2012 (29 April 2014) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...seeks such an order ranges from his statement that the lease (or Agreement to Lease) should have provided for an assessment of the rental at the time the lease was entered into, to assertions that Mr ZN should have advised Mr AX of the right to request a variation to the rental as provided for in the Agreement to Lease. [20] The first observation to make in respect of these assertions, is that they are assertions of negligence, or, in terms of s 12(a) of the Act, conduct that falls s...

4. LP v VS & Ors LCRO 170 / 2011 (17 May 2012) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...current complaints have about them the flavour of action intended, at least in part, to cause trouble or annoyance to the Respondents. Undoubtedly they fulfil the dictionary definition quoted above. [39] Therefore I must reject the Applicant’s request that his actions not be described as “vexatious”. I am satisfied firstly that these complaints, both court related and bank account/receipt matters, were “vexatious” as defined, and secondly that the Standards Committee’s...

5. OY v QS LCRO 66 / 2011 (28 August 2012) [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...connection with Mr OY’s impending departure. [32] Mr OY’s complaint in this regard is founded on the fact that he considers that Mr QS had agreed to some sort of an implied retainer to act in Mr OY’s interests. This was based on the alleged request by Mr OY in July 2009 to accept instructions on behalf of Mr OY personally. Even if Mr QS had agreed to that, such an acknowledgement does not amount to accepting that he would thereafter only act in the interests of Mr OY in th...

6. SI v MO LCRO 241 / 2011 (7 November 2012) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...Often figures provided are approximate as was the case in this instance. In these circumstances, the clients’ authority was to make payment within the range of $7,500 to $10,000. A lawyer will often exercise a discretion to pay the amount requested without reference back to the client depending on the nature of the institution to whom the money is to be paid, and the proximity of the amount required to the amount anticipated by the client. However, the ultimate responsibility...

7. AA v ZZ LCRO 156 / 2010 (24 January 2011) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...Practitioner was that L was not legally competent to have revoked the EPA. He contended that the Practitioner had made no 2 effort to seek advice from medical persons responsible for L‟s care and treatment as to her competency. He informed the New Zealand Law Society that “The consequences of this document have been traumatic for me and our mutual friends.” He explained this by stating that L‟s family had removed her from the X care, spirited her to Wellington to c...

8. Samuelu v Aasa [2014] NZIACDT 67 (30 May 2014) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...unsatisfactory after making inquiries. [2.5] Immigration New Zealand informed the adviser of the difficulty with the job offer and she failed to respond in a satisfactory manner. She provided no substantive response to Immigration New Zealand’s requests. [2.6] She failed to inform the complainant of what had happened, he had to make his own inquires with Immigration New Zealand. [3] The essence of the complaint is the adviser took fees, lodged an application that was not satisfactor...

9. Cameron - Kaihiki 2A (2008) 124 Whangarei MB 158 (124 WH 158) [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...application to establish an aim whenua lIust and will issue directions at the end of this judgment inl'elation to that application. Special Aid Fund [35) At the hearing on 16 January 2007 I indicated that I would consider Iris Moraghan's request fol' payment out of the Special Aid Fund. She has incul1'ed costs of $79,54 and $125.89 in relation to the adveliising of the hui I directed hel' to hold before 31 December 2006. 124 Whangarei MB 167 [36] Payme...

10. [2017] EmpC 92 P v A [pdf, 111 KB]

    ...May 2017. C is the People and Culture Manager for A. She is based in the 1 Employment Court Regulations 2000, r 19(2). New Plymouth branch of the defendant company, but her role is to perform the human resources function for the defendant on a national basis. [6] In C’s affidavit, she sets out the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s delay in filing a statement of defence to the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintif...