Search Results

1. RK v LP LCRO 292 / 2011 (1 October 2012) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...position: a. This is a commercial matter; b. The Practitioner was entitled to take a position on behalf of his client; c. The Practitioner was at all times acting on the instructions of his client; d. The Practitioner does not owe any duty of care to the Applicant; e. The franchise agreement required the franchisee to grant a general release on the transfer of the business (in clause 18.11); f. The Applicant was separately advised; g. There was no undue pressure to sign the t...

2. Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 181 [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...287/01, 15 October 2002; (ii) The contended point of law must be “capable of bona fide and serious argument” to qualify for the grant of leave: eg. Impact Manufacturing (unreported), Doogue J, HC Wellington, AP 266/00, 6 July 2001; (iii) Care must be taken to avoid allowing issues of fact to be dressed up as questions of law; appeals on the former be proscribed: eg. Northland Co-operative Dairy Co Limited v Rapana [1999] 1 ERNZ 361, 363 (CA); (iv) Where an appeal is limi...

3. IAA v van Zyl [2012] NZIACDT 59 (11 September 2012) [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...clients; it was not a case of him acting in bad faith. The misrepresentation was only misleading as a matter of logic. [19] The complaint was the Authority’s, and Mr K was satisfied with the service he received. In these circumstances, consumer protection is not a real concern, and Mr K confirmed this in an affidavit presented in support of the submission. [20] Mr van Zyl produced a written statement in which he explained: [20.1] At the time, he genuinely believed he was complying...

4. [2022] NZEnvC 203 Hadley v Waterfall Park Developments Limited [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...aware of QLDC’s position until 31 July 2020, thus considers it unfair that it pay for costs incurred prior to that date. [11] WPDL refutes the Hadleys’ submission that Bielby factors are present because the court would not have undertaken a careful legal analysis of the relevant objectives and policies to determine how the relevant rules were applied if this were the case. Moreover, WPDL submits thar Mr Meehan’s evidence reflects the ‘real world’ view that one purpose...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v PL [2016] NZLCDT 12 [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...having received written submissions from counsel for both the applicant and the respondent. [2] The Tribunal found in its majority decision that the respondent had breached Rule 13.9 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (Rules) in that he failed to ensure that discovery obligations were fully complied with by his client. The Tribunal found that the respondent’s failure was of a low level. He failed to adequately instruct a member of h...

6. Canterbury / Westland Standards Committee 3 v Johnson [2018] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...is well known that the Disciplinary Tribunal’s penalty function does not have as its primary purpose punishment, although orders inevitably will have some such effect. The predominant purposes are to advance the public interest (which include “protection of the public”), to maintain professional standards, to impose sanctions on a practitioner for breach of his/her duties, and to provide scope for rehabilitation in appropriate cases.” [4] The process of assessing penalty begins...

7. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Brill [2022] NZLCDT 13 (16 May 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...Wellington District Law Society [2011] NZLR 850. 3 [5] Having reached this point, we then stood back and considered whether the overall penalty to be imposed in this case met the purposes of the legislation. That is, was it sufficient to protect the public, maintain the reputation of the profession and uphold professional standards. Those are the primary purposes of disciplinary sanctions rather than any punitive purpose, although it is recognised that orders may well have a...

8. Flewitt v New Zealand Law Society [2014] NZLCDT 64 [pdf, 43 KB]

   ...methamphetamine. [2] As recorded in the Tribunal’s decision of June 2010, that addiction resulted in the dishonesty offending which, in turn, brought him before the Tribunal. He was struck off. [3] By that stage, not only had he lost his career, but also his home and (temporarily) his family. [4] By the time of the strike-off hearing, Mr Flewitt had begun to turn his life around. He had been clean of drugs for over six months, had established a support network and had sough...

9. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 1 v Dhillon [2023] NZLCDT 5 (21 March 2023) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...with the name of the chambers of her employer and invoices were issued in the name of the employer, that would appear 1 Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (LCA), Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 2 Section 12(a), (b) and/or (c) of the LCA. 3 Of the LCA. 4 to be the extent of the chambers’ involvement in relation to Ms Dhillon’s immigration work. [12] The three complainants all approached Ms Dhi...

10. Complaints Assessment Committee 416 v Singh [2018] NZREADT 34 [pdf, 196 KB]

    ...to an unlicensed person to use in property transactions. [10] Mr Mortimer submitted that licensees belong to a regulated profession, and their involvement in a transaction offers reassurance to third parties. Licensees must therefore take care in controlling how they are associated with any particular transaction. He submitted that this is most easily done by licensees lending their names and brands to transactions only when their involvement is secured by an agency agreement....