Search Results

1. LB v Standards Committee LCRO 77 / 2011 (1 September 2011) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...conduct, his conduct was not open to criticism. [18] The NZLS responded to the review application on behalf of the Standards Committee, clarifying that the reason the complaint was brought against the Practitioner was because he was the partner responsible for the file. [19] This review has been undertaken on the papers pursuant to section 206 of the Act. The parties have consented to this process, which allows a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) to conduct the review on th...

2. Keynes Ltd v Slough LCRO 92 / 2009 (31 July 2009) [pdf, 20 KB]

   ...[2009] 1 NZLR 514, 533 the High Court considered that for negligence, to reach the disciplinary threshold must be: of a degree that tends to affect the good reputation and standing of the legal profession generally in the eyes of reasonable and responsible members of the public. Members of the public would regard the actions as below the standards required of a law practitioner, and to be accepted as such by responsible members of the profession. It is behaviour or actions which, if...

3. XG v BC LCRO 131 / 2011 (24 June 2013) [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...2 Letter from Mr BC to LCRO 3 November 2011. 4 [16] Mr BC therefore needed the authority of the executors of the estate before making any payment to beneficiaries. The executors delegated their responsibility to identify the beneficiaries to Mr BC. Mr XG, as with a number of the beneficiaries, was not known to the executors or to Mr BC. Mr BC therefore required all beneficiaries to provide photographic ID with all details being leg

4. McFarlane v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 49 [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...inspections were passed by the Council does not reduce either Mr Webber or Mr Garton’s liability. They personally designed and built the MacFarlanes’ dwelling and managed the construction. Mr Webber and Mr Garton personally assumed the responsibilities of a project manager/head contractor and builder and therefore personally owed the MacFarlanes a duty of care in these roles.1 I am satisfied that they breached this duty by causing weathertightness defects and the resul...

5. Turner v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 50 [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...this question being put to Mr Sutherland. Procedural Order 1 recorded some of the discussions that took place at the conference but not this. This basis for costs is not established. Page | 5 C. Capstone’s statement of response [11] A statement of response was filed the day before the scheduled mediation that alleged for the first time that Capstone was a “labour only” contractor. This led to an application for an adjournment of mediation (which...

6. [2016] NZSSAA 085 (31 August 2016) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...Germany which provides for one or more of the contingencies provided for in the New Zealand income support programme, e.g. old age, sickness or unemployment. Administered by or on behalf of the German Government [23] The Government of Germany is responsible for a variety of legislation governing the various schemes which make up the German income support programme. The Federal Ministry of Labour Social Affairs, which is a department of the German Government, is responsible for...

7. Barry v Devi [2011] NZIACDT 19 (6 July 2011) [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...failed to respond to the queries when the Complainants discovered the true situation. The Adviser has criticised the Complainants then engaging another adviser to assist them. That criticism leaves the concern the Adviser failed to accept professional responsibility in her dealings with these clients. [18] I find there was a breach of Clause 1 of the Code. The Adviser failed to provide service with care, respect, diligence or professionalism. Her conduct amounted to an egregious disregard...

8. Waitangi Tribunal - February 2015 Porirua ki Manawatū pānui [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...claimants, researchers and other parties to organise and facilitate the inquiry, manage inquiry events and assist with documentation and legal issues. Andrew Francis Senior Research Analyst/Inquiry Supervisor As inquiry supervisor, Andrew is responsible for strategic oversight of the inquiry and research. He provides advice and quality assurance on procedural and research documents. Andrew also analyses inquiry issues and develops inquiry procedures and strategies. The role o...

9. KV v WC LCRO 102 / 2011 (15 February 2012) [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...withheld at settlement. The Applicant accepted that the review was confined to this issue. [18] I put it to the Applicant that there were two issues involved in this review. The first was whether the Practitioner failed in his professional responsibilities towards her, and the second was that if there had been such a failure, whether that failure met the required threshold for an adverse disciplinary finding against him. [19] I explained that the conduct complained of occurred...

10. AR v ZG LCRO 60 / 2010 (15 March 2011) [pdf, 82 KB]

    ...replied with an explanation of the charges which he claimed all concerned trust matters, and included a print out of the attendances. He denied ever having acted for the wife personally. [6] The Applicant was dissatisfied with the Practitioner‟s responses and eventually laid a complaint with the New Zealand Law Society. The complaint appeared to focus on the delays by the Practitioner in providing the breakdown of the charges, but later included the complaint that the Practitione...