Search Results

1. LCRO 8/2014 HTO v AG [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...purpose. Background [2] HTO operated in New Zealand as an internet service provider (ISP). [3] Mr AG acted for DYRJ. DYRJ had invested around $300,000 to purchase rights to a number of [Country’s] television shows. Mr AG’s instructions were to protect DYRJ’s intellectual property rights. [4] On 25 August 2011 Mr AG sent a three-page letter to HTO. Mr AG said he acted for DYRJ, identified several TV channels over which DYRJ claimed copyright, and set out its concerns abo...

2. LCRO 47/2014 HJ v GK [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...because Mr GK has taken no appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable grounds for making the allegation exist. [18] Mr HJ says Mr GK’s behaviour is distressing to him because Mr GK has not recognised his reporting of misdeeds within the Company as protected disclosures, but has instead manufactured a dispute against his interests and in contravention of an alleged agreement over how the Company would operate. [19] Mr HJ would like an unqualified written apology from Mr GK for his...

3. DH v EJ LCRO 207/2014 (13 April 2015) [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...changed. Introduction [1] Mr DH has applied for a review of a decision dated 29 August 2014 by the [Provincial] Standards Committee, in which the Committee found five breaches of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, and that his conduct was unsatisfactory pursuant to s 12(b) and (c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act). [2] The Committee censured Mr DH, ordered him to pay a fine of $2,000, and $500 in costs and expenses...

4. Nelson Standards Committee v Smith [2018] NZLCDT 34 [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...sought or other forms of penalty. She accepted that given that the practitioner had not renewed his practising certificate after June this year, that the suspension for a short term appeared 9 somewhat academic. Providing that public protection was achieved in another way, such as restrictions on practice, Ms Carter did not strongly advance suspension at this point. Seriousness of Conduct [31] In considering penalty we begin first with the seriousness of the offending....

5. [2022] NZEnvC 092 Port of Tauranga Limited [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...involve the giving of legal advice or providing other legal services. Beyond that, however, I think that the effect of the Tribunal’s order on appearing before the Court to represent others raises more complex issues which need to be considered carefully in light of the relevant legislation. Statutory provisions Section 275 of the RMA provides: 275 Personal appearance or by representative A person who has a right to appear or is allowed to appear before the Environment Co...

6. [2023] NZIACDT 3 - MT v LL (2 February 2023) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...approved the complainant’s essential skills work visa on 20 October 2021. The adviser immediately informed the complainant. [15] The complainant was advised by MBIE on 22 October 2021 that he was eligible to apply for a migrant exploitation protection visa. He applied for the visa on 27 October and it was granted the following day, 28 October. 4 [16] The complainant sent an email to the adviser that same day, 28 October 2021, stating that he did not agree with the way she a...

7. [2012] NZEmpC 199 Faitala & Goff v Terranova Homes & Care Ltd [pdf, 217 KB]

   VASIVASI FAITALA V TERRANOVA HOMES & CARE LIMITED NZEmpC WN [2012] NZEmpC 199 [27 November 2012] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2012] NZEmpC 199 WRC 22/12 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed in full from the Authority BETWEEN VASIVASI FAITALA First Plaintiff AND DALRENE GOFF Second Plaintiff AND TERRANOVA HOMES & CARE LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 2 October 2012 (Heard at Wellington) Court: Chief Judge G L Colgan Judg...

8. AL v BW LCRO 268 / 2012 (24 July 2013) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...and accordingly, the Committee decided to take no further action pursuant to s 138(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act). [7] The Committee noted that a lawyer’s duty is to his (own) client whose interests he was required to protect, and that the Practitioner did not act for the respondent. The Committee acknowledged the Applicant’s frustration, but the fact that the parties were 3 unable to reach agreement did not give rise to professional conduct...

9. CARROLL v Coroners Court at Auckland (2013 NZHC 906) [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...extent that the requirements of the common law are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. They are therefore to be construed as stipulating the applicants’ minimum rights, not the full extent of them. As Joseph says: 10 Statutory protections are minima not maxima, and the courts will supplement the procedures by reference to common law standards of fairness. For supplementation, it must be shown that the statutory procedures are insufficient to do justice and that com...

10. LCRO 103/2021 & LCRO 58/2022, LCRO 104/2021 and LCRO 105/2021 GS v ABC Ltd & HY, [Law Firm A] v ABC Ltd & HY and SW v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (24 November 2022) [pdf, 595 KB]

    ...FQ (for Ms HY) provided a reply to the lawyers’ response to Ms HY’s complaint on 14 May 2020. It was submitted for Ms HY that the lawyers had: (a) failed at every step of their engagement to fulfil the fundamental obligations and duties of care to Ms HY; and (b) provided erroneous advice in respect to the issue as to whether Ms HY could legally remove ducting from her unit, and improperly counselled Ms HY to defend the proceedings brought in the Tenancy Tribunal by the body c...