Search Results

1. [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...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. 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...

5. 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...

6. [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...

7. Wellington Standards Committee v Manktelow [2012] NZLCDT 30 [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...This occurred for a period of almost two years. [6] The Practitioner readily and promptly admitted all of the charges. The Trust Account [7] A solicitor’s Trust Account is an account in which clients funds are accumulated and held in trust. Careful records need to be kept showing the individual entitlements of clients to funds within the account. Subject to correct procedures being followed, a lawyer is entitled to take his or her fee remuneration or to recover disbursements...

8. DN v EO LCRO 263/2013 (31 August 2015) [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...amounts to misconduct under section 7); [24] I have therefore considered the Act, regulations and practice rules made under it to ascertain whether Mr EO’s conduct may have contravened any of those professional standards. Conduct and Client Care Rules Rule 2.3 [25] As the objection process is a legal process under the REAA, I have considered rule 2.3 and whether Mr EO may have been using the objection process for an improper purpose. Rule 2.3 says:4 A lawyer must use leg...

9. UI v OQ LCRO 225/2011 (8 March 2013) [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...the Practitioner had misrepresented the contents of the RM Consultant’s Report, had failed to recognise that the District Council was in breach of the Local Government Act 2002, and that it was overall alleged that the Practitioner had failed to protect the Applicant’s interests, and had been negligent in advice that was given to him. The Committee noted that the narrative supplied by the Applicant was “littered with allegations of corruption, file doctoring, negligence, an ine...

10. LCRO 195/2016 AJR v BKT (29 October 2018) [pdf, 159 KB]

    ...Society (NZLS) about conduct on the part of Mr BKT. Complaint [20] Mr AJR says Mr BKT contravened his obligations in relation to privilege, citing various rules under Chapter 13 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the rules), which relate to the duties and obligations that rest on lawyers as officers of court acting in litigation. He says Mr BKT discovered 848,000 pages of documents, including the contents of the laptop, some were...