Search Results

1. LCRO 137/2015 RR v BN, SF, WE, IM and PL (3 August 2018) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...observation that Ms RR misapprehends how trusts can be formed, the logic that pervades Ms RR’s complaints and her application for review can fairly be described as deeply flawed. [29] In addition to the other materials available on review, I have carefully considered Ms RR’s comments at the review hearing. I have been unable to distil any standards issue that arises from any of the concerns Ms RR raises. It is noted that most if not all of her initial concerns have been consid...

2. OX v XX Standards Committee LCRO 180/2015 (4 October 2016) [pdf, 456 KB]

   ...to conduct that would be regarded by lawyers of good standing, in this case “criminal defence lawyers approved for legal aid”, as being unacceptable. [44] Counsel submits the standard prescribed under the Act is objective, given the consumer protection purpose of the Act. The interests being protected are described as those of the legally aided client and the Legal Services Commissioner. Counsel submits the Committee properly applied the correct standard in respect of both findi...

3. EBT v Mudaliar [2015] NZIACDT 92 (16 October 2015) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...interest against Mr Mudaliar’s interests (A v Professional Conduct Committee at [82]). [25] When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty that, short of exclusion from a profession, a person will not reoffend. This Tribunal must carefully weigh the circumstances. It is appropriate to place an element of considered trust in a practitioner who has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [26] Dishonesty points to the need to remove a practitioner from a pro...

4. LCRO 188/2019 QK v RJ (13 May 2020) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...the Executors) refused to provide her with a copy of her mother’s will and did not answer or acknowledge Mr YG’s letters of 6 and 10 September 2019. Ms QK’s complaint concludes: I would appreciate your intervention so my position may be protected. [7] In a letter dated 14 October 2019, Ms QK asked NZLS’ Complaints Service for confirmation that her complaint had been received. She was told it had been. Ms QK was invited to provide a copy of the will, and to identify the la...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Mr G [2024] NZLCDT 16 (31 May 2024) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...“least restrictive intervention” enunciated in the Daniels 2 case. [24] A rehabilitative approach can involve requirements for further education, mentoring and other forms of monitoring, which have a dual role of assisting the lawyer while protecting the consumer of legal services. [25] Finally, if suspension is under consideration, we carefully assess whether the lawyer is a fit and proper person to practise the law. In order to impose suspension the Tribunal members must be...

6. [2024] NZREADT 45 – Parmar v REAA, KB & LB (20 November 2024) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...[96]. 4 (b) raising industry standards: (c) providing accountability through a disciplinary process that is independent, transparent, and effective. [15] The focus of professional disciplinary proceedings is not punishment, but the protection of the public:6 …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 t...

7. BORA Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill [pdf, 437 KB]

   ...impact on bodily integrity has not been considered in detail in New Zealand, courts in the United States and Canada have been proceeded on the basis that forfeiture does constitute punishment and is accordingly subject to scrutiny against constitutional protections. In any event, we consider that even if forfeiture orders were to be considered "treatment" or "punishment" that is subject to s 9 of the BORA, the impact of such orders is not such as to constitute "dis...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 231Aurecon New Zealand Limited v Dowlut [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...claim under the Equal Pay Act 1972, in particular on the basis that she has been unlawfully discriminated against (s161(1)(qd) of the Act). (f) Whether Aurecon retaliated or threatened to retaliate against Ms Dowlut in breach of s 21 of the Protected Disclosures (Protection of Whistleblowers) Act 2022 because Ms Dowlut made or intended to make a protected disclosure. (g) Whether Ms Dowlut was unjustifiably dismissed from her employment with Aurecon. … [14] The Authority...

9. Auckland Standards Committee v Korver [2011] NZLCDT 22 [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...practise. [4] The Tribunal heard the application on 2 September 2011. After considering the grounds in support of the application, the position adopted by Mr Korver, who consented to the application, and the public interest having regard to the protective purposes of the professional disciplinary regime, the Tribunal granted leave and allowed the application. [5] As a consequence, Mr Korver faced two charges that he had been negligent or incompetent to such a degree as to reflect...

10. Dawson v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Wellington 36 [pdf, 242 KB]

    Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000043 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 36 BETWEEN ANTHONY AND ANGELA DAWSON Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL (formerly known as NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL) First Respondent AND OSBORNE PRICE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Second Respondent AND MARK AND JOANN-LEE FULLER Third Respondents AND GREG PAUL THOMAS (Removed) Fourth Respondent AND IAN BLACK Fifth Respondent AND BARNEY CORNAGA Sixth Respond