Search Results

1. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Horsley [2014] NZLCDT 9 [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...standing as disgraceful or dishonourable; and/or (b) is conduct that occurred at a time the practitioner was providing regulated services and is conduct that contravened Rule 11.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (misleading or deceptive conduct); and/or (c) is conduct unconnected with the provision of regulated services but which would justify a finding that he is not a fit and proper person or is otherwise unsuited to engage in pract...

2. Otago Standards Committee v Rayner [2014] NZLCDT 62 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...card and the information required to use it, the practitioner was in breach of the fundamental obligation of a lawyer under s 4(c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (“Act”) to act in accordance with all fiduciary duties and duties of care and s 4(d) to protect the interests of his client. (e) Acting as a barrister for M at the time, was in breach of the Lawyers and Conveyancers (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (“LCACC”), in particular rules 5.1, 5.2 an...

3. Idea Services v Attorney-General (Interim Order Application) [2013] NZHRRT 24 [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...are able to effectively perform the dual functions of promoting and protecting human rights: • an anti-discrimination standard for Government that is backed up by an accessible complaints process and effective remedies. The Government has given careful consideration to how best to achieve these aims, and in particular has taken cognisance of the recommendations of, and the public submissions received on, the independent report on the Re-Evaluation of Human Rights Protections in New Z...

4. QX v ZW LCRO 134/2014 (21 October 2016) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...apply to the Family Court for an eviction. (f) Failed to arrange a court hearing. (g) Failed to keep Ms QX informed. (h) Failed to push for action. (i) Obstructed progress and ignored Judge’s orders. (j) Had a conflict of interest by not protecting the interests of the Legal Services Agency. (k) Involved Ms QX in unreasonable delays and costs. (l) Ms ZW did not do what she said she would do. (m) Gave Ms QX incomplete information. (n) Failed to reply to phone calls and lette...

5. Cole v Realty Insight Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 25 [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...there was a CCC, that it was safe for them to proceed to purchase? e) If so, was the misleading conduct of Mr Xiang an effective cause of the claimants’ loss, namely the purchase of the leaky home? f) Did Mr Xiang owe the claimants a duty of care in relation to the advice given on 23 August 2006 and was such advice causative of the claimants loss? g) Have the claimants established their formal proof claim against Mr Theotesto Reyes, the fifth respondent? h) Have the claima...

6. Regulatory Impact Statement Parliamentary privilege bill [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...Ministers,  such  briefings  are  not  protected by absolute privilege.   42. The Privileges Committee considers these briefings to be necessary for the conduct of proceedings  in Parliament and  therefore  requiring  the  same protection.   The Privileges Committee considered  that the narrower construction of “proceedings  in Parliament” adopted by the Court could have a  “chilling  effect”  on  the  flow  of  information  to...

7. LCRO 233/2014 IB v KZ (27 June 2018) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...is, to a degree, an element of overlap in the submissions filed. A failure to reference a specific submission advanced is not to be construed by the parties as an oversight in failing to consider any argument advanced. All submissions have been carefully considered. Argument 1 — The decision to lodge the complaint was tactical. [25] At the nub of this argument, is suggestion that KZ were hostile to Mr IB, because of the sheer volume of cases that Mr IB was pursuing against them....

8. LCRO 178-2016 KO v RT [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...consideration as to whether it is appropriate to order a penalty, I refer to the guidance provided by the Disciplinary Tribunal which has stated that the:20 “predominant purposes [of orders] are to advance the public interest (which include ‘protection of the public’), to maintain professional standards, to impose 19 IO v SJ LCRO 84/2010 (1 February 2012) at [44], [47]. 20 Daniels v Standards Committee (2) of the Canterbury-Westlan...

9. [2022] NZIACDT 18 - TQ v Gibson (25 July 2022) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...party has sought an oral hearing. ASSESSMENT [35] The Registrar relies on the following provisions of the Code: General 1. A licensed immigration adviser must be honest, professional, diligent and respectful and conduct themselves with due care and in a timely manner. File management 26. A licensed immigration adviser must: … 2 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 45(2) & (3). 3 Section 49(3) & (4). 4 Sparks v Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinar...

10. MG v Hu [2019] NZIACDT 33 (17 May 2019) [pdf, 118 KB]

    ...5 advises that she has purchased proprietary file management software specifically designed for immigration practitioners which assists in complying with file management obligations. She operates a sizeable immigration practice responsibly, carefully, successfully and in compliance with the Code. [22] The Tribunal was also sent the auditor’s report of 29 September 2017 and a further letter from her dated 30 April 2019. [23] The report was a follow-up to an earlier review t...