Search Results

1. 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...

2. [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...

3. 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...

4. 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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. [2022] NZEnvC 093 Waimea Plains Landscape Preservation Society Inc v Gore District Council [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...filed its response to the Society’s application on 19 April 2022, submitting that costs should lie where they fall. They submit the following in response:4 (a) the Council met all procedural directions and requirements for this matter. It was careful to conduct its case in a way that would not unnecessarily lengthen the hearing; (b) all aspects of the Council’s case were relevant to the matters to be determined by the Court. The case advanced by the Council was consistent...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Brill [2022] NZLCDT 13 (16 May 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...Wellington District Law Society [2011] NZLR 850. 3 [5] Having reached this point, we then stood back and considered whether the overall penalty to be imposed in this case met the purposes of the legislation. That is, was it sufficient to protect the public, maintain the reputation of the profession and uphold professional standards. Those are the primary purposes of disciplinary sanctions rather than any punitive purpose, although it is recognised that orders may well have a...

9. [2019] NZEnvC 021 Jacks Point Residential No.2 Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 4.8 MB]

   ...vehicle access was formed and water supply, wastewater treatment and stormwater infrastructure established. Large areas of open space have been set out to provide areas of private amenity, native vegetation enhancement, public trails and landscape protection almost all, on my casual observation, to a very high standard. 2. Chapter 41 (Jacks Point) of the proposed plan and JPG's responses 2.1 Jacks Point under the notified PDP [8] In Chapter 41 of its notified PDP ("PDP n...

10. [2025] NZREADT 41 - DQ & KU v CAC 2204 Rule (19 September 2025) [pdf, 328 KB]

    ...was upheld by the Tribunal which reversed the Committee’s decision and substituted a finding of unsatisfactory conduct against both licensees.1 The Tribunal found they had breached the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (the Rules). [3] It is now for the Tribunal to determine the penalty for each licensee and decide whether to make an order for compensation. BACKGROUND [4] The chronology leading to the complaint is set out in the earlier...