Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 119 KB]
...We consider that this practitioner’s offending was markedly more serious than any of the examples quoted. [18] In our view, the three most relevant decisions, on a comparative basis, are: B v Canterbury Standards Committee No. 1.8 In that matter the High Court considered the Tribunal had been amply justified in making an order for strike off because, amongst other things, there was proven dishonesty and there was no suggestion that the practitioner’s depressive illness had af...