Search Results

1. Workington v Sheffield LCRO 55 / 2009 (26 August 2009) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...basis that they considered the Committee had not properly understood the complaints. Background [4] In mid 2007 the law firm of Sheffield Cardiff acted for Mr Workington in the purchase of a commercial property. Mr X, a partner in the firm, was responsible for the file and assisted by staff solicitor Ms Sheffield. Mr Sheffield became involved with the file during Mr X‟s temporary absence, and ultimately had numerous conversations with Mr Workington. [5] Mr Workington was g...

2. MC & Ors v ND LCRO 377/2013 (13 October 2014) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...Lawyers, noting that her contact had been with Mr RB and Mr ND. In addition, Mr PA played a part in the events that unfolded. [21] OP Lawyers is not an incorporated law firm and consequently the complaint could not proceed against the firm. In his response to the review application Mr ND makes the point that he signed the letter of engagement on behalf of the firm, and the letter of engagement5 [22] In considering this issue records that Mr RB would have overall responsibility...

3. Nile Mosley v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 409) & Cooper & Co Real Estate Limited t/a Harcourts Cooper & Co [2017] NZREADT 62 [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...Agency has] released you from the Management agreement”. [12] New agents appointed by Mr Mosley emailed the Agency on 14 April asking for confirmation that the Agency’s management was cancelled as from that day. There is no evidence of a response from the Agency, but the Chief Executive Officer of the Harcourts Group said in a letter to Mr Mosley on 17 May that the management agreement was terminated on 19 April, “when the keys were handed to your new property manager”....

4. GZ v TE LCRO 17 / 2011 (17 February 2012) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...proceedings would be filed against them personally, but rather whether it was a breach of professional standards for Mr GZ to propose that course of action and pursue it in the particular circumstances of this case. This decision is not to be taken as a response to the more general question posed by Mr TE. Scope of review [38] Section 203 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 provides as follows: “Scope of review of final determination The Legal Complaints Review Officer m...

5. E82 Martin Te Moni - EIC - Ngaati Whanaunga [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   ...historically known for our prowess at waka carving, and into the 1900s maintained a substantial taua and had a large number of Tauranga waka along our coastline. In the mid-1800s, Ngaati Whanaunga assembled a taua of more than forty of our waka taua in response to threats to our mana whenua at Whangamata. 39. Elsdon Best recorded the following reference by Hoane Nahi to Ngaati Whanaunga waka: 4 “It was Ngaati Paoa and Ngaati Whanaunga who supplied the waka taua nunui (great...

6. LCRO 201/2017 ZK v XM (29 June 2018) [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...duties were owed to Mrs RM to “act on [her] instructions” and “to protect and promote” Mrs RM’s interests which Ms XM had done. As such, Ms XM “owed limited duties to Ms ZK as a third party”. (c) Ms ZK had her own lawyer who was responsible to protect and promote her interests, including advising her concerning any claim made against the Mrs RM’s estate, or in relation to Ms ZK’s financial assistance provided to Mrs RM and Mr SP in September 2006. (d) Ms XM...

7. [2015] NZEmpC 202 Higgs v Monro Ltd [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...have been appropriate for Peter Monro to interview Philip Monro formally, or to ask him to write down his recollection as to what had occurred; such information could have been provided to Mr Higgs before the disciplinary meeting, and Mr Higgs’ response could then have been recorded. Since this did not occur, the Authority could not be satisfied the complaint was fully and fairly put to Mr Higgs. c) Mr Higgs had told the Authority that there was a heated discussion just befo...

8. Roberts v McKenzie - Tokaanu Māori Township 2nd Residue Trust (2017) 371 Aotea MB 133 (371 AOT 133) [pdf, 340 KB]

   ................................................................................................. [14] Discussion .......................................................................................................................... [16] Should the responsible trustees be removed or replaced? ............................................ [21] Applicant’s submissions ................................................................................................. [21] Respondents’ su...

9. LCRO 143/2017 AC v BT (19 February 2019) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...assisting [Ms AC]. [44] Ms AC says the delay also caused her “personal stress and anxiety”, and “associated health care costs”. (iv) Respect and courtesy [45] Ms AC says Ms BT had been “dismissive” towards [Ms AC’s] lawyer. Response [46] On 22 August 2017, Mr ZK, a partner in the firm, responded to Ms AC’s application for review. [47] Apart from commenting that Ms AC’s application “should not contain any new matters or complaints” he says the firm has n...

10. [2021] NZREADT 7 - Sharma v Brake (12 February 2021) [pdf, 421 KB]

    ...had not been repaired. [6] A further element of the complaint is that the Sharmas say that contrary to section 136 of the Act, they never received anything in writing advising them that Ms Brake was the vendor of the property. [7] In her response to the complaint Ms Brake stated that: [a] She did not mislead Mr and Mrs Sharma by not mentioning two burglaries that had taken place at the property approximately six months before they acquired it; [b] She did not mislead the compl...