Search Results

1. IT v KRR [2015] NZIACDT 66 (28 May 2015) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...these circumstances, the fee was potentially not fair and reasonable. [12] The complainant lodged the complaint raising additional grounds; however, he did not pursue them in a statement of reply. It is not necessary to discuss them further. The responses [13] The complainant raised the following matters in response to the Statement of Complaint: [13.1] He did not consider Mr R’s notes were correct, as he found discrepancies. [13.2] He said he was pressured to sign the agreement; h...

2. GH v UF LCRO 22 / 2011 (9 November 2011) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...another lawyer and then described the complexities of ownership between the Applicant and his own clients. The Practitioner informed the Committee that he had been corresponding with the Applicant‟s solicitor, stating that his clients were not responsible for costs incurred nor had they agreed to be responsible for them. The Practitioner disputed that the O family had a contract with the Applicant, and he submitted that despite this the Applicant had taken it upon himself to incu...

3. Kettering v Biggleswade LCRO 212 / 2009 (19 March 2010) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...being laid against him. He considered this to be a real risk where the witness was being cross-examined by his own lawyer. [15] In reply the Applicant submitted that his relationship with D was not fiduciary in nature, and that his professional responsibility towards the client was confined to the specific retainers, namely to defend them in relation to the charges they confronted. In that light he considered that he did not have a responsibility to protect D from making admission...

4. Engela South Trustee Limited v Auckland Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 12 [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...and I accept there can be more than one, is the party sitting at the centre of and directing the project, invariably for its own financial benefit. It is the entity which decides on and engages the builder and any professional advisers. It is responsible for the implementation and completion of the development process. It has the power to make all important decisions. Policy demands that the developer owes actionable duties to owners of the buildings it develops. [16] H...

5. BORA Parliamentary Privilege Bill [pdf, 315 KB]

   ...conclude that while the Bill raises questions under ss 25 and 27 of that Act and under the implicit right to a remedy in the Act, no inconsistency arises. 2.In short: 2.1The Bill restates and affirms principles of parliamentary privilege, including in response to the decisions of the Supreme Court and the Privy Council in Attorney- General v Leigh [2012] 2 NZLR 713 and Jennings v Buchanan [2005] 2 NZLR 577. 2.2It is open to debate whether issues of parliamentary privilege fall beyond th...

6. TG v Tangilanu [2012] NZIACDT 11 (27 March 2012) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...issue for determination is whether the complaint that Ms Tangilanu ignored her obligations under the Code of Conduct and misled her client is established; after considering all of the material before the Tribunal. The Complaint, and the Adviser’s Response [7] The key events and circumstances raised by the complaint were: [7.1] Ms TG engaged Ms Tangilanu in February 2008, and an application for residence was made. The application was unsuccessful. [7.2] Ms Tangilanu became a licens...

7. New Zealand Law Society v ZJ LCRO 200 / 2010 (4 April 2011) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...despite his intention to prepare the necessary reports and records for the Law Society that could not be done due to the malfunctioning software. He concluded by acknowledging that there had been a problem which had escalated, also acknowledging his responsibility for ensuring that there were functioning systems in place. [17] After receiving the Practitioner‟s response the Standards Committee resolved to set the matter down for a hearing pursuant to section 153(4) of the Lawyers...

8. AR v VE LCRO 334/2012 (10 August 2015) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...order that [the debtor] could pursue an appeal”.5 [8] The Judge dealing with the proceedings refused to grant an adjournment and adjudicated Mr VE’s client bankrupt. She did however grant an interim stay as sought by Mr VE.6 Complaint and response [9] The complaint is simple: by pursuing an application for a stay in order to bring an appeal after the Judge had indicated she would not adjourn the bankruptcy proceedings, Mr VE was in breach of his undertaking to Mr AR’s firm;...

9. Pohe - Whangawehi 9B (2005) 108 Wairoa MB 136 (108 WR 136) [pdf, 487 KB]

   ...Mr Jim Pohe's letter to the Court there were concerns expressed about an agreement with the applicant concerning access. 45. In considering any partition application access is an important consideration. Access is required and should be the responsibility of the person seeking the partition. Minute Book: 108 WR 142 other Family Members 46. Mr Jim Pohe's concern was that if the partition application is granted then other family members who received shares from their mothe...

10. LCRO 193/2019 CF v YL (19 February 2021) [pdf, 134 KB]

    ...particularly given B’s [other] health disability; and (b) his attempts to communicate with Ms YL on behalf of his son had been frustrated by Ms YL; and (c) Ms YL had made no attempt to organise a “face-to-face” meeting with B. [10] In providing response to the complaint, Ms YL submitted that; (a) she considered that she had communicated appropriately with B throughout; and (b) B had not made request of her to liaise with him through Mr CF; and (c) throughout the course o...