Search Results

1. Mitchell v Corrections [2023] NZHRRT 18 [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...provides health or disability services to prisoners, which are a limited class of persons. Corrections is specifically required under the Corrections Act 2004 to have a health centre manager and Medical Officer and to ensure that prisoners have health care that is reasonably equivalent to the standard of health care available to the public. [18] Ms Mitchell submits that Corrections is not a health agency as it cannot issue NHI numbers and [redacted] are contractors, so not part of a he...

2. [2023] NZEmpC 145 Robertson v IDEA Services Ltd [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...Act 2000, s 103A(4). 3 Section 103A(5). needs because of his intellectual disability. He suffers from a post-traumatic stress disorder, and has difficulty communicating and expressing himself. He has a legacy of prior abuse while in care. He also has a degenerative condition affecting his sight by severely limiting it. [15] Client A has the benefit of Government funding that recognises his complex needs and behaviour and that he requires a high level of daily support, e...

3. LCRO 130/2018 UH v OB (12 February 2020) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...[1] Mr UH has applied for a review of the determination by [City] Standards Committee [X] (the Committee) to take no further action in respect of his complaint about Mr OB. The Committee’s determination was made following consideration of a careful and detailed report by Mr TD, which was commissioned by the Committee pursuant to s 144 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 and r 33 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regula...

4. Waxman v Pal [2016] NZHRRT 28 [pdf, 71 KB]

   ...of Dr Jitendra Pal the actions of Dr Waxman negatively impacted on the practices in terms of extra waiting time for patients, inattentiveness to their problems and failure to attend to paperwork such as lab results and ACC queries. He felt patient care had been compromised by Dr Waxman’s actions. He was also concerned at the breach of the privacy of the clients of Best Doctors in that their private files were now located on the computer of a third party. The correctness of Dr Pal’s...

5. LCRO 103/2020 ZA - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (24 August 2020) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...XCs complaint of 5 February 2019. (c) That evidence was the message recorded at [10] above. (d) The message raised concern that Mr ZA may have committed a possible breach of r 2 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules), in that the statement appeared to have purpose of enabling [YBL] to avoid meeting its obligations to the Inland Revenue Department to pay GST and income tax. [21] Mr ZA was advised of his right to provide a respo...

6. LCRO 52/2022 AD v OC (12 July 2024) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...[27] The Committee considered the complaint materials in the context of a lawyer’s duties to act on the client’s instructions and to act competently and in a timely manner consistent with the terms of the retainer and the duty to take reasonable care. [28] In relation to the applicant’s allegation of failure to act on his instructions to take legal action against the Council, the Committee noted that the work before 23 September 2020 was focused on engaging with the Council to...

7. Mabruk v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 409) and Watson (not participating in appeal) [2018] NZREADT 74 [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...the decision of Complaints Assessment Committee 409 (“the Committee”), dated 10 April 2018, in which it found that he had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct by breaching a number of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”) (“the substantive decision”). He has also appealed against the Committee’s decision, dated 23 July 2018, in which the Committee censured him and ordered him to pay a fine of $1,000 (“the penalty dec...

8. LCRO 18/2020 MP v LT (31 August 2020) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...week after providing instructions he was informed that his costs were $7,699. 1 The factors identified, are those set out in r 9.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the reasonable fee factors). 3 (c) [Law Firm] filed a claim in the District Court seeking recovery of costs in the sum of $11,845. (d) Proceedings were transferred to the Disputes Tribunal. (e) The Tribunal had advised...

9. Matheis v Ling [2015] NZIACDT 91 (08 October 2015) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...conspicuous the Registrar would obviously have noticed; and this demonstrated that Ms Ling’s non- compliance was an innocent mistake. [26] The Registrar’s approach of not providing particulars of a complaint when requesting a file provides an important protection for licensed immigration advisers. Generally, it will then be impossible that file notes, and other documents produced without notice of the particulars of the complaint, could be fabricated in response to the complaint. Amon...

10. LCRO 59/2016 and 61/2016 DE and QV v Standards Committee (27 September 2018) [pdf, 175 KB]

    ...of various defaults that had occurred, noting in particular the defaults that had occurred in a loan to Mr KP. In addition to the breaches of the Rules referred to, the Committee was satisfied that the practitioners had breached their duty of care to the contributors. [5] The Committee determined that the lawyers’ conduct constituted unsatisfactory conduct in terms of ss 12(a) and (c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) and having made this finding, the Committee...