Search Results

1. Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 4 [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...PURCHASE OF THE HOUSE? ................................................................. 21 WERE MR AND MRS WILKINSON ACTING AS DEVELOPERS? .................... 24 DID MR WILKINSON AND WILKINSON BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED BREACH THEIR DUTY OF CARE TO FUTURE PURCHASERS AS BUILDERS? ....................................................................................................... 26 IS HITEX LIABLE FOR THE CREATION OF DEFECTS? .................................. 28 DID MR H...

2. CS v HT and LM LCRO 25/2013, 50/2013 and 51/2013 (24 June 2014) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...of investigations by the Complaints Service the Standards Committee resolved to commence an own motion investigation in that it appeared ABC firm had not provided the client information as required by Rules 3.4 and 3.5 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules12 until 2 September 2010. [26] Following receipt of the judgment Mr CS lodged his second complaint. This focused on the conduct of the hearing by Mr HT and Mrs LM and alleged:13 1. HT [sic] has been professionally negligent in th...

3. LCRO 1/2021 NB v GP (31 May 2022) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...an examination of Mr NB’s complaint is r 3, which directs that in providing regulated services to a client, a lawyer must always act competently and in a timely manner consistent with the terms of the retainer and the duty to take reasonable care. [33] In LCRO 205/2015, the Review Officer addressed the factors a Review Officer may consider, when addressing complaint that a lawyer has failed to act competently. Paragraphs [34] to [42] following, are adopted from that decision.5...

4. Sharma v Manchanda [2018] NZIACDT 2 (2 February 2018) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...complaint was made, the Registrar required that Mr Manchanda provide a copy of his file, but he did not provide file notes that he later relied on. [3] The essential features of the grounds of complaint are, Mr Manchanda failed to take adequate care over the absent police certificate, did not give adequate advice and failed to follow up advice in writing, and he failed to provide the Registrar with a full copy of his file. [4] The essential facts are not contentious, though what w...

5. AB v DE & Ors LCRO 75/2014 (11 July 2016) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act), and in particular the obligation to uphold the rule of law and facilitate the administration of justice in New Zealand. (b) Relied on rule 6 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules) and effectively ignored 3 other provisions in those rules and was a ruling that there was no effective restraint on the four practitioners and that they were permitted to indulge in illegal activities to prote...

6. Stewart v CAC10064 & Cooper [2013] NZREADT 58 [pdf, 58 KB]

   ...vendors. Eves admits that Coopers continued to contact the vendors directly.” [17] Finally, the CAC said: “4.17 ... and in its defence [Eves] has said that its policy was not to enforce any double commission. This is not the same as taking care to ensure that no legal obligation to pay two commissions arises, and Eves has provided no rebuttal of the allegation that they reassured the vendors that there was no risk, rather than taking steps to obtain the relevant information. It...

7. LCRO 22/2020 N&Y LK v XZ (19 May 2021) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...caused them to incur $[XXX] in unnecessary costs. [20] The issues addressed by the Committee were:11 i. Whether Mr XZ acted in a conflict of interest situation in breach of Rule 6.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (“RCCC”); ii. Whether Mr XZ in his affidavit misled the Court in breach of RCCC 13.1; iii. Whether Mr XZ in his affidavit failed to provide all information relevant to the Court in breach of RCCC 13.7; iv. Whether...

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

   ...Correspondence was exchanged between the lawyers, then on 23 December 2011 Ms J, HTO’s office manager, wrote to Mr AG expressing HTO’s belief that Mr AG had contravened r 2.7 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules). 1 Mr AG’s letter refers to the Copyright Act 2004 but he acknowledges that was an error. 2 Copyright Act 1994, ss 131 and 92C. 3 Letter AG to HTO (25 August 2011)....

9. LM v RB LCRO 332/2012 (15 June 2016) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...applied for a review of the determination by Area Standards Committee 2, particularly the orders made by it against Mr RB following findings of unsatisfactory conduct for breaches of rules 2.3, 3 and 7 (more particularly 7.1) of the Conduct and Client Care Rules1 [2] Mr LM seeks an order of compensation against Mr RB. and for failing to follow instructions. The Committee imposed a fine of $500 and ordered Mr RB to pay the sum of $500 to the New Zealand Law Society by way of costs....

10. Guest v New Zealand Law Society [2009] NZLCDT 16 [pdf, 95 KB]

    ...Law Soc and Another Privy Council Appeal No.43 of 2002, 19 May 2003. In this decision their Lordships made particular mention of the dim view taken of argument put by the Law Society to support the abandonment of an undertaking given. We pay careful regard to those words, but do not consider they apply in the present instance. The information sought to be protected was in fact protected to the extent of the assurances which were given. We categorise those assurances as an under...