Search Results

1. Reading v Bracknell LCRO 81 / 2009 (18 July 2009) [pdf, 17 KB]

   ...sent by the Standards Committee on 30 March referred again to the special circumstances that would be required for the matter to be considered by the Committee, and gave the complainants until 22 April to reply. [10] The Committee received no response from Mr and Mrs Reading to their letters. On 6 May the Committee considered the matter on the basis of the information before it. This included Mr Bracknell’s detailed response, which explained the additional charge. Mr and Mrs...

2. KL v City Standards Committee of the New Zealand Law Society LCRO 026/2014 (6 August 2014) [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...should be ordered to pay costs to NZLS. Costs Against NZLS [7] Although Mr KL had not produced his files, the Committee continued its complaints process, with counsel for Mr KL advising this Office that Mr KL’s application for review “would responsibly not be pursued”.1 In support of his costs application, counsel for Mr KL argued that the Committee’s requirement had “been de facto quashed and as such the review… has become moot”.2 [8] The Legal Complaints Review Off...

3. Auckland City Council (as assignee) v Russell [pdf, 30 KB]

   ...2005. 3.4 That material was supplied to Mr Russell who had, pursuant to Procedural Order No 9, 12 working days to reply. That time is now well and truly passed. I understand that the case manager has made approaches to Mr Russell to seek any response from him. Although Mr Russell advised the case manager on 30 November 2005 that he had completed a response and would be supplying this, in fact that has not occurred. 3.5 I am satisfied that he has notice of the applicatio...

4. Pirika v Eru - Te Ngae Farm Trust [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 285 (2013 APPEAL 285) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...10% and a contribution as large as 80% or 90% will seldom be reasonable on an objective analysis. Discussion [7] There is force in Mr McKechnie’s submission that there was a genuine issue of interpretation on which trustees were divided. The responsible course was indeed to seek a ruling from the Court. It was not in fact Mr McKechnie’s clients who made the original 2013 Maori Appellate Court MB 288 application. What Mr McKechnie’s clients did was appeal the decision...

5. 2017 NZSSAA 011 (31 March 2017) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...responded to an email the previous day from Mr Ensor on behalf of the Ministry to Ms XXXX. Mr Ensor recorded that the parties had met and that the breakdown he attached to the email showed Ms XXXX’s debt as $281 at 20 September 2008. [11] In response Mr Howell stated: Thanks David for the breakdown of advances and RAP provided since 1996 and the debt recovery that took place up to 20 September 2009 when the debt was only $281, and that this amount has been fully repaid as...

6. AD v Secretary of Justice 10 October 2017 NZRA 003/2017 [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...context efficiency was easy to measure because the fees paid are fixed fees. The applicant concludes his submission by saying that the audit done on the selected files was inadequate and poorly conducted. It was substandard. THE SECRETARY’S RESPONSE [14] The Secretary submits that: (i) Her decision outlines detailed reasons for the cancellation of the applicant’s approvals; (ii) There was evidence to prove that the applicant had not provided quality service to his clients;...

7. [2016] NZSSAA 007 (24 February 2016) [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...parenting of the younger children in the family, the permanent loss of the Family Tax Credit relating to XXXX and significant social and educational consequences for XXXX herself. They say the Chief Executive’s decision took away their rights and responsibilities as parents without good reason, without their consent and without a fair and proper process. It is difficult not to conclude that the decision to grant a benefit to XXXX has impacted on them, at least in the social sense. [9...

8. Nicholson & Jozsa v Chase-Seymour [2013] NZIACDT 39 (26 June 2013) [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...ill-conceived and the outcome was that it failed. [14] I accept that Mr Nicholson and Ms Jozsa correctly identify that the findings are consistent with Ms Chase-Seymour failing to appreciate her professional obligations. [15] Ms Chase-Seymour’s response to the findings against her do not exhibit contrition, insight or any other response that indicates she now appreciates where she failed in her professional obligations. [16] However, I am not satisfied that this matter on its own is...

9. BB v YU LCRO 187 / 2010 (31 March 2011) [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...lawyers to assist him, none of whom had managed to achieve a favourable result. [8] The complaint against the Respondent was that the Respondent had not taken any steps in connection with the Applicant’s file for a period of five months. [9] In response to the complaint, the Respondent advised that the Applicant was incorrect when he stated that the Respondent had assured him that he would represent him in Court in connection with the matter. The reason for this was that the...

10. Singla v IAA [2018] NZIACDT 15 (8 June 2018) [pdf, 191 KB]

    ...she considered. [12] It is sufficient to record that in her view the advice tendered by the Licensed Immigration Adviser, and the actions taken by the Adviser in relation to the appellant’s circumstances, were appropriate. The appellant’s response [13] The appellant has set out a series of assertions. His material does not identify immigration law and prove facts that are a founding for this Tribunal to find the adviser gave wrong advice, or breached professional obligations...