Search Results

1. 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...

2. LCRO 159/2017 YB v WD [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...client informed about progress, and consult the client about steps to be taken to implement the client’s instructions.5 [31] Lawyers are also required to act competently. Rule 3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules) states that:6 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. (b) Did Y...

3. [2020] NZREADT 41 - Bellis v Real Estate Agents Authority (9 September 2020) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...had represented to him that the QV valuation did not include the walnut trees, which was blatantly false. He claimed that this was in breach of Mr Davison’s obligations under r 6.4 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”). [15] Mr Bellis claimed that Mr Davison was responsible for checking information he receives from a vendor for accuracy before he passed it on to a potential buyer. He claimed that as Mr Davison deals i...

4. 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...

5. 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...

6. Auckland District Law Society v Dorbu [2009] NZLCDT 3 [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...of delay. They had this to say (paragraph 35): “Both the High Court of Australia and the Federal Court concluded that a weighing process, similar to that undertaken in a criminal case, was required, but with accounts also to be taken of the protective nature of the disciplinary jurisdiction. That is disciplinary proceedings are not punitive in nature, but essentially protective of societal interests.” The Court went on to uphold that the application of administrative law p...

7. [2019] NZLVT 003 Walker v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.3 MB]

   ...Council's application [6] The Council seeks an award of costs for $175,000 being approximately 70% of actual costs. The Council submits that the features of this case that justify a greater than usual award of costs are:" (a) after a carefully reasoned first instance hearing by an appropriately qualified commissioner the applicant amended its application materially to take full advantage of the de novo jurisdiction of the court; (b) the applicant sought to challenge the...

8. Otago Standards Committee v Duff [2022] NZLCDT 4 (21 January 2022) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...[4] In determining proper penalty orders to be made against a practitioner, the Tribunal begins with an assessment of the gravity of the misconduct itself.2 [5] We remind ourselves that the purpose of penalty and disciplinary proceedings is a protective not punitive one. The LCA records in s 3 its purposes which include the maintenance of public confidence in the provision of legal services and the protection of consumers of legal services. Both limbs of the protective purposes e...

9. 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...

10. BORA Ngati Tuwharetoa (Bay of Plenty) Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 78 KB]

    ...the Bill excludes damages as a remedy in respect of a public law action against the relevant Minister alleging failure to comply with a protocol. This clause affects the substantive law and does not in my view fall within the ambit of s 27(3) which protects procedural rights. Accordingly, clause 23(3) of the Bill is not inconsistent with s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights. Yours faithfully Jane Foster Associate Crown Counsel In addition to the general disclaimer for all documents on th...