Search Results

1. MC v BL [2013] NZIACDT 8 (28 February 2013) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...expended $2,070 in legal expenses. Mr MC requested his documents from Ms BL to brief his lawyer. Ms BL was slow to return the documents; however, they were all returned by 9 August 2011. [22] Mr MC seeks to have his legal expenses refunded. The Response [23] Ms BL engaged in a series of correspondence with the Authority regarding a response to the complaint. The correspondence concluded with Ms BL undertaking to provide submissions in 4 response to the complaint by...

2. LCRO 101/2019 YK v RN (17 March 2020) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...2018 was secured. [7] At 3:41 PM on 15 August 2018, Ms YK made request of Ms RN to secure a further extension of 48 hours. At around 3:45 PM on that day, Ms RN made request of the vendors’ solicitor for a further extension. She received no response to that request. [8] The following day (16 August 2018) the vendors cancelled the contract. The complaint and the Standards Committee decision [9] Ms YK lodged a complaint with the New Zealand Law Society Complaints Service on 10 Se...

3. O'Reilly v Registrar of the Real Estate Agents Authority [2016] NZREADT 78 [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...writing. He submitted that diversion is not available if a charge is denied. He noted that there was no evidence before the Tribunal regarding his receipt of diversion. [25] Mr Hodge submitted that following Mr O’Reilly’s and Mr Morgan’s responses to the first notice of her intention to cancel Mr O’Reilly’s licence, the Registrar reviewed the matter and issued the second notice, founded only on Mr O’Reilly’s not having disclosed the Police enquiries concerning the al...

4. Sexual Violence Operational Improvements (Justice Response) Report Executive Summary 2022 [pdf, 396 KB]

   Operational Improvements - Stocktake and Review – 2020/21 Prepared for the Ministry of Justice by GravitasOPG Executive Summary 2022 Improving the Justice Response to Victims of Sexual Violence Operational Improvements Stocktake and Review 2020/21 Acknowledgements This report was written by Sue Allison and Tania Boyer from Gravitas OPG, on behalf of the Ministry of Justice. The authors would like to...

5. 2021 07 23 Record of PHC PC8 Timetable Directions [pdf, 404 KB]

   ...highlighting and expanding upon key points that you wish the court to consider. [9] You can of course call evidence, which is to be in writing filed in advance. Scope issue [10] An issue has arisen as to whether nitrogen input controls proposed by Wise Response Society Inc (‘Wise Response’) in its submission on PC8 is within the ambit of the plan change. A similar issue may arise in relation to relief sought by Mr W Thompson, although ORC advised it will talk to Mr Thompson an...

6. LCRO 94/2024 NS v WB (26 February 2025) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...invoice would be rendered for my time involved. Accordingly, assuming that Mr NS will be on Company business and has been appropriately authorised to view the documents, could you please confirm that to be the case and that the company will accept responsibility for payment for my time involved. I look forward to hearing from you so that I can then respond to Mr NS’s message. [11] On 28 June 2023, Ms OE responded to Mr NS. In that response, she said this: I am writing to confirm...

7. Ly v Navarette-Scholes [2015] NZIACDT 46 (29 April 2015) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...client relationship. [10.3] In relation to the alleged failure to take charge of payments, Mr Laurent said there was no reliable evidence any money was paid to the associate, and if there was the quantum was doubtful. Ms Navarette-Scholes was not responsible for failing to account for something that did not exist. [11] The complainants did not file a statement of reply, or respond to Ms Navarette-Scholes’s Statement of Reply. She was not required to file a statement of reply if she ac...

8. LCRO 227/2015 ZM v KT [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...decision was: unreasonable, failed to take into account relevant considerations, took into account irrelevant considerations and/or was based in an error of law or otherwise should be reviewed as per Deliu v Hong. [34] Ms KT was invited to provide response to the application. She advised that she relied on the submissions that had been put before the Committee. She indicated that she would agree to the application being dealt with on the papers, and noted that she considered that...

9. LCRO 228/2015 ZM v VC [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...decision was: unreasonable, failed to take into account relevant considerations, took into account irrelevant considerations and/or was based in an error of law or otherwise should be reviewed as per Deliu v Hong. [33] Mr VC was invited to provide response to the application. He advised that he relied on the submissions that had been put before the Committee. He indicated that he would agree to the application being dealt with on the papers, and noted that he considered that the...

10. LCRO 229/2015 ZM v BM, VJ, FR and XS QC [pdf, 120 KB]

    ...unreasonable, failed to take into account relevant considerations, took into account irrelevant considerations and/or was based in an error of law or otherwise should be reviewed as per Deliu v Hong. [32] The practitioners were invited to provide response to the application. Counsel for the practitioners advised that reliance was placed on the submissions that had been put before the Committee, but requested that the judgement noted at [20] above, be taken under consideration when de...