Search Results

1. Guardianship, custody & access: Māori perspectives and experiences [pdf, 627 KB]

   ...Pilot Study Interviews 83 12.1 Pilot Study/Applicant 1 83 12.2 Pilot Study/Applicant 2 84 12.3 Pilot Study/Respondent 1 86 12.4 Pilot Study/ Respondent 2 88 13 Issues and Themes 91 13.1 Framing the Issues and Themes 91 13.2 Principles Related to the Care and Upbringing of Children 93 13.3 Access to Justice Issues 97 13.4 Favourable Experiences 97 13.5 Counsel for the Child 98 13.6 Cost Issues 98 13.7 Other Services 99 14 Hei Whakamutunga 103 15 Glossary of Mäori Terms 105 16 Bibliography 107...

2. Supervised Contact Quality Practice Framework [pdf, 762 KB]

   ...service standards are reviewed in consultation with providers. About Supervised Contact SC is directed by a Judge as part of a Parenting Order and supports children to spend time with a parent, or another person, who does not have day-to-day care of them. SC helps the parent to maintain a relationship with their child, while satisfying any concerns the court may have around the child’s safety with that parent. Over time, the family will likely move on to unsupervised contact, w...

3. [2020] NZIACDT 22 - NJUM v VOLE (2 June 2020) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...breach of cl 1 of the Code (being professional) and of cl 31(a) (not providing false documentation to a visa officer). [18] Furthermore, it was found that Mr Vole had breached a number of other Code obligations: (1) He lacked diligence and due care in filing applications without the necessary documents, in breach of cl 1; (2) He failed to provide to the complainant written confirmation of material discussions with her, in breach of cl 26(c); and (3) He failed to provide to the...

4. LCRO 229/2017 and 021/2018 VL v YN (8 May 2019) [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...lack of action and their incompetence caused us to lose the property we had wanted to buy and further because it was conditional on the sale of our own property which we sold we are now homeless. Devon VL did not act in accordance to her duties of care for us as clients. Devon VL did not act competently, in a timely manner or in accordance with instructions received. Devon VL did not act to protect or promote our interests. Devon VL did not treat us fairly. Mr CA’s submissions...

5. [2021] NZIACDT 26 - RH v Ji - Sanctions (23 December 2021) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...immigration advice, and to enhance the reputation of New Zealand as a migration destination, by providing for the regulation of persons who give immigration advice. [41] The focus of professional disciplinary proceedings is not punishment, but the protection of the public:4 …It is well established that professional disciplinary proceedings are civil and not criminal in nature. That is because the purpose of statutory disciplinary proceedings for various occupations is not to punish...

6. Ron Lunken Family Trust v Haywood Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 66 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...and partly verbal and that Haywood was responsible for both design and construction. It is claimed that Haywood breached clause 2 of the contract by failing to carry out the construction to the required standards and by breaching its duty of care as the builder. [6] The Trustees and the Council claim against Mr de Geest in tort as the project manager on the ground that Mr de Geest personally assumed the role of project manager and was responsible for supervising and co-o...

7. [2021] NZIACDT 13 - TI v Malcolm (8 June 2021) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...There was no response from Mr Malcolm. Complaint referred to Tribunal [23] The Registrar referred the complaint to the Tribunal on 20 April 2021. It alleges the following against Mr Malcolm: (1) negligence, or alternatively a lack of due care in breach of cl 1 of the Code, by – (a) failing to lodge the application in time; (b) failing to lodge the application online; (c) failing to inform the complainant of Immigration New Zealand’s letter of 23 October 2020; (d) fai...

8. KIT v Zhu [2019] NZIACDT 34 (20 May 2019) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...[25] However, it was accepted by Mr Zhu that he neglected to have a signed contract with the complainant. Nor did he provide the Code of Conduct 2014 (the Code) to the complainant. He also admitted not checking the interim visa issue with due care. He further acknowledged that his file notes were not complete, which was a vital mistake to make. [26] Mr Zhu set out in his letter to the Authority his proposed remedial action. This included asking all 16 staff, apart from the thr...

9. LCRO 14/2020 CL v BB (18 December 2020) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...services and terminated instructions on 16 November 2018. Mr BB rendered his account in the sum of $3,475 plus GST and disbursements. Ms CL’s complaints [8] Ms CLs letter of complaint summarised the issues that concerned her: “Lack of duty of care – excessive account – $4,171.25, being charged $70 emails to book an appointment and then receive “ok” back.”1 She has analysed the firm’s time records and refers to charges of $70 for minor administrative matters. She...

10. WL & BN v SD LCRO 106/2015 (5 July 2016) [pdf, 65 KB]

    ...Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr WL1 has applied for a review of the determination by a Standards Committee that Mr WL2 breached rule 13.9 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules3 [2] This review involves a consideration of the application of rule 13.9. The Committee proceeded on the basis that the rule creates a separate obligation to adhere to the rules of privilege generally rather than on the basis t...