Search Results

1. Anderson v CAC 20003 & Ors [2014] NZREADT 15 [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...disclosure of the purported life interest over Unit Q, and clarification that a normal residential use of the property would not comply with existing resource consent. As the Committee noted, this will not necessarily exonerate the licensees from responsibility for any misleading statements. However, the licensees’ advertising campaign reflected the advice they received from the vendor’s solicitors. [38] Mr McCoubrey puts it that, in short, while the advertisement may arguably be...

2. CN v AKSC1 LCRO 106 / 2010 (23 September 2010) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...March 2010, and the Hearing was to be conducted on the papers. The Practitioner sought an extension of time to make submissions, and was informed that the 19 March‟s hearing has been postponed till 26 March, with the Practitioner‟s comments or response being sought no later than the morning of the 25 March 2010. The Practitioner‟s response (via his Counsel) was forwarded to the Standards Committee on that day. [10] In addition to Counsel‟s submissions, the material inclu...

3. J v A LCRO 31/2009 (30 April 2009) [pdf, 35 KB]

   ...outlining the basis of the application. The Standards Committee provided its file to this office. Lawyer A was informed of the application and given an opportunity to respond. He did so through his counsel on 7 April 2009. Client J replied to that response on 21 April 2009. That reply was provided to Lawyer A for his information. The parties have consented to this matter being considered without a formal hearing and therefore in accordance with s 206(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancer...

4. Aylesbury v Milton LCRO 61 / 2009 (31 July 2009) [pdf, 36 KB]

   ...19 March 2008. The effect of those judgements was formalised in an order of the Court which was sealed on 30 June 2008. The effect of the order was to require Mr Aylesbury to make a substantial payment to his former wife “forthwith”. In the response to the complaint made to the Standards Committee the respondents traversed what they considered to be the considerable difficulties in obtaining judgement (or co- 3 operation in other respects) against Mr Aylesbury. For e...

5. AG & AH v BG & BH LCRO 52 / 2012 (19 July 2013) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...parties) then a formal delegation of the Committee’s functions and powers pursuant to s 184 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) is required. [13] Upon receipt of the two complaints by Ms AH and Mr AG, the Complaints Service sought a response from the lawyers. [14] That response was received from BAB on behalf of both lawyers by way of a letter dated 17 March 2011, and forwarded to Ms AH and Mr AG on 21 March. The 4 letter did not invite any respons...

6. LCRO 33/2015 HS v Area Standards Committee [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...proper standards of professionalism and have failed to treat those practitioners with respect and courtesy in breach of any or all of Rules 2.10, 10, 11 and 13 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care. [20] Mr HS provided detailed submissions in response to the Notice, dated 20 November 2014. [21] In his submissions responding to the Notice, Mr HS raised the issue of natural justice. He referred to the complaints decision as appearing: to give a clear indication of predeterminatio...

7. LCRO 207/2016 YN v NZ Police (2 August 2017) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...concerned that the dishonest and unprofessional conduct they describe falls short of the standards required of lawyers, and consider the matter is a serious breach that warrants in disciplinary action. Ms YN’s reply [22] Ms YN provided a detailed response in which she disputed much of what was in the complaint. Ms YN says she has worked in the [Town] Court for over 20 years. She says she had known Mrs DL as a prison officer for several years, and that Mrs DL is familiar with...

8. Wai 2180 Taihape inquiry newsletter 4 Jan 2017 [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...registrar is assigned, parties should feel welcome to contact either Joanna Morgan or Emma Powell in the first instance. Emma Powell 04 471 4920 Emma.Powell@justice.govt.nz Research Analyst/Inquiry Facilitator The inquiry facilitator is responsible for the day to day procedural aspects of the inquiry, planning and supporting Tribunal events, and project managing commissioned research. They are the central point for liaison on procedural and evidential matters between the Tr...

9. MC v VB LCRO 175 / 2011 (18 June 2012) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...take place and the fees to be paid to AEE. [46] In her letter of 23 February 2011 to the Complaints Service, Ms MC asserts that Mr MD was a personal friend of Mr VB and believed that he was also a client or former client. As Mr VB noted in his response of 25 March 2011, these assertions imply collusion between Mr VB and Mr MD. Mr VB refutes this absolutely. Nothing that has been provided by Ms MC supports such an inference and is to be disregarded. [47] Following consideration of...

10. OX v PE LCRO 224 / 2010 and 262 / 2011 (22 August 2012) [pdf, 115 KB]

    ...that the Family Court matters have progressed. [63] My observation is that the Practitioner himself appeared to have become the focus of the Applicant’s dissatisfaction with his situation. I see no foundation for holding the Practitioner responsible for the concerns held by the Applicant’s wife. Nor have I found that any disciplinary issues arise for the Practitioner in the way he has represented the interest of his client. [64] There is no basis for taking a different vie...