Search Results

1. AE v Decision to prosecute LCRO 93/2013 & 338/2013 (11 March 2014) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...under the Law Practitioners Act 1982, was no longer necessary as it was now met by other means. Part of the other means is the role that this Office plays in reviewing decisions to refer matters to the Tribunal. The Court said that:14 The protection to the practitioner once afforded by the threshold test [in the Law Practitioners Act] is thus now met by other means. The oversight of the LCRO should also assist in protecting the resources of the Tribunal and prevent it from bei...

2. Finn and Anor as Trustees of the Angela Poynter Trust v Chen [2011] NZWHT Auckland 40 [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...developer owes a non-delegable duty to an intended owner of a home to properly supervise the construction of the home. Cooke J, and with whom Somers J joined with Richardson J in agreement:2 We would hold that it is a duty to see that proper care and skill are exercised in the building of the houses and that it cannot be avoided by delegation to an independent contractor. [23] Harrison J in Body Corporate 188273 v Leuschke Group Architects Limited defined a “developer�€...

3. DV v RG LCRO 141/2015 (28 June 2016) [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...arising from Ms DV’s complaint: (a) Whether Mr RG failed to act competently in relation to the variation of the agreement? (rule 3);1 1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 3 (b) Whether Mr RG failed to respond to queries in a timely manner? (rule 3); and (c) Whether Mr RG represented to Ms DV that he was a lawyer in breach of sections 21 to 24 of the Act. [10] The Committe...

4. [2022] NZIACDT 14 - XZ v Liu (27 June 2022) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...contended that there was nothing on the face of the e-visa itself, nor the approval letter, to tell Mr Liu that the date of the grant was 17 January 2020. It would be 6 inappropriate to label Mr Liu’s advice as negligent or lacking in due care, pursuant to the test set out in Mercado.2 An error in the course of providing professional advice may not breach a professional standard if it is an excusable human error.3 In this case, Mr Liu overlooked what other competent and dili...

5. LCRO 54/2018 KJ v VW (6 July 2018) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...which allows a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) to conduct the review on the basis of all information available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [19] I record that having carefully read the complaint, the response to the complaint, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the application for review, there are no additional issues or questions in my mind that neces...

6. LCRO 21/2019 IV v EC and HL (21 December 2020) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...concludes Ms EC acted in accordance with her professional obligations in respect of the EPOAs. The sale and purchase of the properties [23] The Committee’s decision records the requirements of rr 6.1, 6.1.1, and 6.2 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules,9 which relate to a lawyer (or a firm) acting for both parties on a matter. The Committee said:10 Ms EC and Mr HL both say an information barrier was established, with different members of the firm acting for Mr IV and the purcha...

7. Human-Rights-Commission-submissions-on-scope-of-inquiry.pdf [pdf, 379 KB]

   ...that section 8 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (“NZBORA”) requires the state to undertake a “rights-compliant” investigation into a death at the hands of a state actor, or where a death has resulted from a breach of the State’s protective duties.5 6. Her Honour considered that the Royal Commission was required to consider matters that might fall to a Coroner to inquire into, including the protective duties and actions of state actors prior to the terrorist attac...

8. LCRO 162/2015 and 66/2016 IA v CMR (31 July 2017) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...documents. [37] The Committee considered the various materials and determined the own motion inquiry on the basis that there had been unsatisfactory conduct on the part of Mr IA in that he had contravened rule 11.2 of the Lawyers Conduct and Client Care Rules10 (the rules) by failing to ensure Mr and Mrs CMR received independent advice before accepting liability for (H)’s legal fees. The Committee imposed a fine of $1,500, an order for costs of $2,000 and directed publication of...

9. Family Violence Risk Assessment and Management Framework [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   ...victims, perpetrators, families and whānau to find the help they need. We need a new approach where agencies, services and practitioners can proactively support individuals, family and whānau experiencing family violence. We need a new approach to protect victims and stop perpetrators committing family violence. If the system is to deliver improved outcomes for people, it’s imperative it takes a consistent, coordinated, and supportive approach to securing the engagement of all victi...

10. National Standards Committee v Orlov [2013] NZLCDT 45 [pdf, 390 KB]

    ...comply. Mr Orlov had appeared before Judge Smith in the Family Court at Tauranga on 28 July 2005 resulting in a judgment dated 29 July 2005 in which the Judge directed Child Youth & Family to uplift the child from Ms R and return him to Mr C’s care, on directions that Mr C lived with such persons as directed, as a protective measure for the child, but maintaining that Ms R could have shared custody. Justice Harrison on 29 August 2005 granted orders by way of Habeas Corpus to...