Search Results

1. [2020] NZEmpC 227 Wills v Farmlands Co-Operative Society Ltd [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...alternative advice. [19] In Ms Sharma’s submissions she argued that, in combination, giving instructions at the January meeting, returning the acceptance page and the subsequent emails showed the test in s 115(b) was met. She emphasised the client care and service section of Pitt & Moore’s terms and conditions, where the firm agreed to protect and promote Ms Wills’ interests. Although not expressed precisely in these terms, Ms Sharma’s submissions for Ms Wills emphasis...

2. LCRO 161/2017 CR v EM, DN and BN (24 January 2019) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...Standards Committee (the Committee) which concluded there had been unsatisfactory conduct on his part arising from his involvement in the sale of a property in the exercise of his powers under a power of attorney made by Mr TN (the EPOA) pursuant to Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 (PPPR Act). [2] The respondents are the complainants, Mr TN’s grandson EM, and Mr TN’s children BN and DN (the respondents). Mr TN appointed his son BN as property attorney joint...

3. Faleauto v GH LCRO 100/2015 (29 November 2016) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...contravened ss 110(2) and 112(1) of the Act, regs 9 and 10 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008 (the Trust Account Regulations), and rules 9.3 and 14.2 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules). [3] The Committee also concluded that Mr Faleauto had contravened rules 4.2, 7.1 and 10 by failing to complete the retainer he had entered into when he agreed to represent Ms GH’s brother, and rule 14.4 b...

4. LCRO 202/2016 and 6/2017 JI v ZY [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...trustees’ names. [16] STI contended by transferring property into the WV and XU Trust, Mr JI had acted in a manner that was contrary to Ms ZY’s interests in breach of r 6.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules), and hindered her ability to claim to an interest in relationship property. STI submits that Mr JI should have obtained Ms ZY’s informed consent to the transfer of [property 2] and [property 3] before either pro...

5. [2019] NZCAA 1 (18 January 2019) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...appellant would not sell the vehicle if released without forfeiture. [7.7] The appellant is under financial pressure, due to the competitive nature of its business, the high costs involved, and the onerous regulatory requirements. [7.8] Any lack of care was due to naivety, and an understanding that a third party would ensure the risk was managed. The risk was unforeseen, and a rare situation. Customs’ Position [8] Customs say the records showing the discrepancies in the odo...

6. AB v ZY LCRO 54 / 2010 (27 January 2011) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...called into question, and a dispute arose between Mr H and Ms M as to the extent of Mr H’s equity in the property. This dispute remained unresolved at the time of Mr H’s death. [9] At the time of his death, his claim against the property was protected by a caveat. [10] The Respondent acted for Ms M in the dispute with Mr H while he was alive, and subsequently continued to act on her behalf after his death. [11] The Estate eventually abandoned its claim for reasons which are n...

7. Complaints Assessment Committee 404 v Hawkins [2017] NZREADT 35 [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...[b] Mr Hawkins did not explain, or explain adequately, to Ms Fletcher his role in the transactions after he “stepped in” as vendor; [c] Mr Hawkins obtained a financial benefit from his sale of the lots to Ms Fletcher and Ms Mardon, in that he protected his own purchase, and his own investment in the subdivision; [d] Mr Hawkins did not advise Ms Fletcher (either orally or in writing), and Ms Mardon (in writing) that by selling lots 3 and 4 to them he would obtain a financial be...

8. LCRO 171/2023 PF v DS (1 February 2024) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. The parties were invited to comment on this proposed course of action and neither of them objected to it. 7 [32] 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 necessit...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Hong [2019] NZLCDT 28 [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...and (d) the obligation on all lawyers operating a trust account to provide reasonable access to an inspector, for the purpose of a trust account review, to ensure the maintenance of public confidence in the provision of legal services and to protect the consumers of legal services, under s 3(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. [5] Mr Hong denied the charge and all particulars. He did not personally file an affidavit in support of his denial of the charge. Karen Chan, his legal executive a...

10. [2022] NZEnvC 092 Port of Tauranga Limited [pdf, 302 KB]

    ...are set out in the LCA but misconduct is defined to include “conduct that would reasonably be regarded by lawyers of good standing as disgraceful or dishonourable.”6 The purpose of the legislative framework was stated by the Tribunal to be protective rather than punitive, 5 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, s 6 “practitioner”. 6 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, s 7(1)(a)(i). [15] [16] [17] 7 such protection being in relation to both the public and the reputat...