Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v O'Boyle [2021] NZLCDT 27 (29 October 2021) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...discussion of our findings and the context of the misconduct can be read in our 29 April 2021 decision. For the purposes of this penalty decision, a brief summary will suffice. Ms O’Boyle became over-involved in a case. Her client lost day to day care of children to an ex-partner. Ms O’Boyle sent letters respectively to the employer of the ex-partner, to the employer of the ex-partner’s partner, and to another employer (because she was unsure of the identity of the ex-partne...

2. LCRO 100/2020 FT v D and O CM (9 June 2020) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...his review application, however, as the time frame engaged by his application traverses in part a time of most uncommon circumstances, being the time during which New Zealand was subject to lockdown as a consequence of the COVID-19 crisis, a more careful assessment as to whether Mr FT’s application is able to proceed is required. [11] The need for a more attentive consideration is rendered more critical, as a consequence of Parliament’s recent passing of an amendment to the Epidem...

3. Best v CAC 406 & Ellis [2016] NZREADT 34 [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...decisions about the orders. [19] Mr Best sought to have the Tribunal reconsider the impact of the offending on him. He requested that his fees be waived and his legal expenses be paid. [20] The penalties open to the Tribunal for breach of the Client Care rules are those prescribed in s.93 Real Estate Agents Act and are in summary (and as relevant). 7 (a) Censuring the licensee; (b) Implementing an agreed settlement; (c) Ordering the licensee to apologise; (d)...

4. Bullent v Standing [2012] NZIACDT 76 (28 September 2012) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...ensure that appropriate standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned.” [32] The statutory purpose is achieved by considering at least four factors which materially bear upon maintaining appropriate standards of conduct: [32.1] Protecting the public: Section 3 of the Act states “The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice ...” [32.2] Demanding minimum standards of conduct: Dentice v Valuers Registrati...

5. LCRO 111/2015 UA v VB (12 May 2017) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...assumed facts recited above are incorrect. Mr VB was not instructed until Mr and Mrs UA wanted to sell the property. 4 Hereafter the vendor will be referred to as Mr XF. 3  The title to the property was complex with numerous interests protected by numerous documents registered against the title.  Mr XF had reserved an option to buy the property back if the subdivision could not be effected.  Mr VB was first instructed when Mr and Mrs UA wanted to sell the pr...

6. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v TCLE-A-T6518151 [2013] NZCOP 12 [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...(b) uploading and downloading may, but need not, occur at the same time.” [2] File sharing networks are not illegal in themselves, although much of the content on file sharing networks is music, film, television, books or software that is protected by the Copyright Act 1994. When a rights owner alleges that its copyright has been infringed via file sharing, the Act provides that the rights owner may require the relevant internet protocol address provider (IPAP) to issue infringeme...

7. LCRO 263/2015 DH v EI (12 May 2017) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...2013. In the Order, Gendall J directed that Mrs EI was “to receive the full balance of sale proceeds 2 from the sale” of a particular property. For her part Mrs EI agreed to remove a caveat over that property which had been lodged to protect her interests. [4] Mr DH acted for Mr FJ on the sale1 and deducted legal fees and disbursements incurred by Mr FJ relating to various matters totalling $11,760 rather than conveyancing costs of $1,612.50 directly associated with the sa...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 145 Federated Farmers of New Zealand Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...proposes 10 exclude? (3) If the answer to any of (2) is 'yes' , Ihen did the appellant refer 10 that provision or matter in Iheir submission (bearing in mind this can be a primary submission or a cross submission). [9) On the basis of its careful review of case law, Re Vivid Holdings also interpreted cl14 to require that any decision sought of the court on a proposed plan appeal (or 'reference') must be 'fairly and reasonably' within the general scope of...

9. CS & KS v H Ltd [2023] NZDT 605 (13 November 2023) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...rooms requires good guttering. Their concern about the gutters is that in future events with heavier rainfall the gutters may overflow 13. HG points out that the inverter is weatherproof to the IP 65 standard. “IP” refers to “International Protection”, and is a standardised code established by the EU as code EN 60529. To meet this standard an appliance must be able demonstrate complete resistance to dust for up to 8 hours (level 6, the first number), and resistance to water...

10. Canterbury Standards Committee v a practitioner [2015] NZLCDT 44 [pdf, 41 KB]

    ...his obligations owed to each of three clients. It is alleged that he acted contrary to the fundamental obligations of lawyers at s 4 of the Act and contrary to Rules 2.4 and 6.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the “Rules”). [2] The full particulars of the charge are discussed in the reasons for the Tribunal’s decision which follow commencing at para [7]. [3] The practitioner has denied the charge. [4] The Tribunal heard the...