Search Results

1. BU v DG LCRO 276 / 2011 (6 November 2013) - Penalty Decision [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...application was the subject of a decision issued from this office dated 17 September 2013 (the substantive decision) which made a finding of unsatisfactory conduct against Mr DG in respect of breaches of Rules 2.3, 2.7 and 2.10 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules.1 Mr DG was found to have used the complaints process for an improper purpose. This decision deals with penalty and costs now that both parties have filed submissions. [2] The details surrounding the complaint are set ou...

2. Suresh v Elizabeth [2019] NZIACDT 45 - Sanctions (3 July 2019) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...visa. It was signed by Ms Elizabeth on behalf of FBP on 18 April 2016. [7] The agreement stated that FBP or an associate office would assist with the presentation of a visa application to Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection and/or Immigration New Zealand in accordance with Australian or New Zealand immigration laws and policies. [8] An initial assessment of the complainant’s eligibility for Immigration New Zealand’s skilled migrant category was m...

3. Lawyer-for-Child-practice-note-updated-July-2024.pdf [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...child list 3 INTRODUCTION 3.1 This practice note replaces all previous practice notes pertaining to the selection, appointment and payment of lawyer for child. 4 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS 4.1 In this practice note: (a) COCA means the Care of Children Act 2004. (b) OT Act means the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 - Children's and Young People's Well-being Act 1989. (c) FCA means the Family Courts Act 1980. 2 (d) The term 'child' includes...

4. [2018] NZLCDT 18 National Standards Committee v Shi [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...Standards Committee submissions on the principles of penalty and disciplinary proceedings. Mr Sorrell’s submissions were directed to the balancing exercise to be carried out by the Tribunal to impose the least restrictive outcome whilst ensuring protection of the public. In that regard Mr Sorrell submitted that context and the work environment in which this young woman had fallen into error were important. [28] [redacted]. [29] In terms of mitigation Mr Sorrell pointed out tha...

5. LCRO 109/2020 SV v FT (28 January 2021) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...that Mr FT’s actions in lodging the caveat constituted unsatisfactory conduct pursuant to s 152(2)(b) of the Act in terms of ss 12(b) and 12(c) of the Act as he had breached r 2.3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules). 1 Kelsey v Taniora [2018] NZHC 1727. 4 [20] In reaching that view, the Committee concluded that Mr FT was not entitled to lodge a caveat and that Mr FT ought to have known that there were no grounds to su...

6. Legal aid Family Fixed Fees Schedules [pdf, 870 KB]

   ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 ADOPTION – GRANTING NOTES ................................................................................................................................................ 3 CARE OF CHILDREN/GUARDIANSHIP ..............................................................................................................................

7. Family Fixed Fee Schedules [pdf, 870 KB]

   ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2 ADOPTION – GRANTING NOTES ................................................................................................................................................ 3 CARE OF CHILDREN/GUARDIANSHIP ..............................................................................................................................

8. Middlemass & Ors as Trustees of the SE & SD Middlemass Family Trust v NZ Log Chalets Ltd [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...has significance later. [28] SE Middlemass undertook caulking in particular to the exterior log extensions in an attempt to close and seal the gaps between the logs. He said he was told to do this by the building inspector Mr Apeldoorn to “protect their investment”. Regardless it is clear that this is a specific requirement contained in the first notice to rectify. It has significance later. [29] In or about January 2002 Dorfliger agreed to box in the log extensions, th...

9. Taylor v Corrections [2018] NZHRRT 35 [pdf, 308 KB]

   ...recite that evidence at length. A possibly incomplete summary follows. [34] The evidence of Mr Arbuckle addressed three broad topics: [34.1] The Department’s concerns relating to staff safety and its view of the importance of staff privacy in protecting both staff safety and the safe management of custodial and community based sentences. [34.2] The Department’s processes for responding to Privacy Act requests and its approach to protecting staff privacy under the Privacy Act. [...

10. ETS v WKE [2013] NZIACDT 4 (05 February 2013) [pdf, 109 KB]

    ...engaged Mr WKE, who unsuccessfully sought to persuade Immigration New Zealand that the position of employment was suitable. The complaint is that the endeavour was either hopeless, or had such little prospect of success that he should have taken some care to warn Mr ETS of that. [3] There was a second instruction after the first endeavour failed, and the complaint is that Mr WKE overcharged for this instruction, which did not progress past the initial stages. [4] The Tribunal has found...