Search Results

1. BORA Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...proposal raises a possible inconsistency with s 17 of the Bill of Rights Act. However, the position is complicated by the uncertain scope of that right in comparable jurisdictions, which do not necessarily recognise the extension of the right to protect associations of a commercial character. However, in our view the proposal is in any event justifiable under s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act as reflecting a rational and legitimate policy choice by the legislature to re-emphasise the import...

2. KIT v Zhu [2019] NZIACDT 46 sanctions (8 July 2019) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...2 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007. 6 [22] In determining the appropriate sanction, it is relevant to note the purpose of the Act: 3 Purpose and scheme of Act The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving 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. [23] The focus of professional dis

3. [2023] NZIACDT 29 - DT v Li (11 December 2023) [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...1 November 2023, the Tribunal found that Ms Li had breached the specified clauses of the Code: (1) Failed to provide the client with an opportunity to review the s 61 requests before lodgement, in breach of cl 1 (obligation of diligence and due care). 1 BT v Li [2023] NZIACDT 27. 3 (2) Failed to indicate to the complainant and/or client whether the second s 61 request was likely to be futile and/or to notify them of such risks, in breach of cl 9(a) and (b) (obligation to...

4. Green v De'Ath [2018] NZIACDT 50 (13 December 2018) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...and the Code of Conduct 2014 (the Code). [4] This misunderstanding occurred because of the tripartite nature of Mr De’Ath’s contractual relationships. Mr De’Ath had contractual relationships with both Mr S (as to immigration and pastoral care matters) and with the Greens (as to recruitment and financial matters). The Tribunal noted at [47] of the decision that Mr S had not signed the “Candidate Terms of Business”, so whether there was in fact any binding written agreem...

5. BORA Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...security, order and discipline in prisons."[2] This principle lay behind the drafting of the Act and is reflected in the Bill. 5. We have nonetheless identified some features that appear to raise issues of inconsistency with the rights and freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights Act. However, where an issue arises a provision may nevertheless be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act if it can be considered a "reasonable limit" that is "justifiable" in terms of s...

6. [2018] NZLCDT 10 Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Hay [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...mitigating features, aggravating features, including prior disciplinary matters, before finally assessing the least restrictive intervention, having regard to the purposes of imposing penalty. [5] Its particular and distinctive function, which is protective rather than punitive, is reflected in the account taken of a number of factors: the lesser attention given to personal factors relating to the practitioner; and the importance attributed to both

7. [2025] NZIACDT 22 – ZZ v Wen (25 March 2025) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...steps to reduce her exposure to future liability. She contacts independently with her clients and does not hand them over to unlicensed people. She has shifted her practice from work visas to primarily focus on education visas. Ms Wen gives more care to proper processes in her work. She has learned a quick and painful lesson. [16] As for the sanctions proposed by the Registrar: 1. A censure is not opposed. 2. In respect of training, Ms Wen states that the time and effort inv...

8. LCRO 119/2018 QL v DW (22 October 2019) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...action on the complaint was necessary or appropriate. [17] In reaching that conclusion, the issue identified by the Committee for consideration was whether, as required by rule 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules), Mr DW acted for Mr QL “competently and consistently with [Mr DW's] duty to take reasonable care”. (1) Relationship property calculations [18] The Committee referred to Mr DW’s calculations on which he b...

9. UF v OU LCRO 90 / 2011 (20 March 2013) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...committee determination (23 March 2011). 6 Standing [15] UF advised that he was the director of CCS Lawyers Limited. He further advised that UG was an employee of that company and that as an employer, it was his role to assist and protect his employees. He contends that this extends to lodging a complaint against other lawyers such as OU who threaten his employees. [16] Regardless of his employment status, UF advised that UG had in any event asked him for help an...

10. BAB v PW LCRO 4 / 2011 (14 August 2012) [pdf, 119 KB]

    ...[1] BAB has lodged an application for review of a determination by Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee to take no further action in respect of a complaint against Mr PW for registering a caveat in breach of Rule 2.3 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules.1 Background [2] On 20 August 2009 Mr PW received instructions from Mr PV to register a caveat against a farm property in [location]. Mr PW had not previously acted for Mr PV, who had until then been represented by BAD in [lo...