Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. [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...

4. [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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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

8. LCRO 202/2016 and 6/2017 JI v ZY [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr JI has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee [X] which determined there had been unsatisfactory conduct on the part of Mr JI for his failure to recognise and protect Ms ZY’s right to claim an interest in land registered in the names of her husband, Mr WV, and his mother, Mrs XU. The Committee censured Mr JI, ordered him to apologise to Ms ZY, and to pay a fine of $2,500 to the New Zealand Law...

9. DN v EO LCRO 263/2013 (31 August 2015) [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...however, that 5 Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s 36(1)(c). 6 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, s 55. 7 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Practice Rules) Regulations 2008, reg 4. 7 consumer protection and promotion of public confidence are statutory purposes shared by s 3(1) of the REAA and s 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. [35] I am unable to discern an improper purpose from a close, objective reading of Mr EO’s objection. M...

10. Complaints Assessment Committee 404 v Hawkins [2017] NZREADT 35 [pdf, 193 KB]

    ...make it clear that he acted for, and owed fiduciary duties to, the vendor. In this case, Mr Hawkins failed to explain the implications of his being the vendor. [27] We do not accept Mr Smith’s submission that the need for a licensee to take care when dealing with friends has only recently been made clear to licensees. It is not new. The need for licensees to adopt a formal approach when dealing with friends (if anything in the interest of ensuring clarity as to the details of the...