Search Results

1. Appeal Against Penalty Olde-Olthof & Anor v REAA CAC 20005 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 37 [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...that the customer can seek expert advice if the customer so chooses.” General Principles [13] We agree with counsel for the Authority that decisions of industry disciplinary tribunals should emphasise the maintenance of high standards and the protection of the public (through both specific and general deterrence). While this may mean that orders made in disciplinary proceedings have a punitive effect, this is not their purpose – Z v CAC [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97]. As McGrath J said...

2. Moctezuma v Chase-Seymour [2013] NZIACDT 40 (26 June 2013) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...Tribunal is required to weigh the public interest against Ms Chase- Seymour’s interests. [59] When dealing with integrity issues there is never any certainty that, short of exclusion from a profession, a person will not reoffend. This Tribunal must carefully weigh the circumstances. It is appropriate to place an element of considered trust in a practitioner who has shown the capacity and willingness to rehabilitate. [60] A significant factor in this case is that it involves dishonesty...

3. Recommendations Recap Issue 17 [pdf, 562 KB]

   Recommendations Recap A summary of coronial recommendations and comments made between 1 July and 30 September 2018 Office of the Chief Coroner | 2018 (3) i Coroners’ recommendations and comments Coroners perform essential functions within our society. They inquire into a range of unexpected deaths to establish the identity of the person who has died and the cause and circumstances of their death. While inquiring into a de

4. Chapman v Western Bay of Plenty District Council [pdf, 364 KB]

   ...Mr Hodgson, a building surveyor, acted as engineer for the remedial work to be done. He obtained a schedule of quantities and estimates for the work, appointed a builder, and supervised the remedial work. During such remedial work, Mr Hodgson carefully maintained a full record of the repairs, which included a photographic record, and usefully listed the defects in his evidence. With this list, Mr Hodgson found that not all the defects he listed had actually caused damage. [5...

5. LCRO 38-2015 PF v MF [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...382/2013 (30 June 2017) at [77]–[79]. 13 [52] It goes without saying that this email would have caused unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to Mr T’s reputation, interests or occupation. [53] In short, Ms GG should have carefully advised her client against expressing her terms for settlement terms in that way. She should have explained the potential dangers of doing so, both for her client and for herself. And, most certainly, she ought not to have se...

6. LCRO 240/2013 TM v DC (8 May 2017) [pdf, 365 KB]

   ...deprived [him] of an entitlement to union membership”. Hearing in person [61] Mr TM indicated that he wished to be heard in person. A hearing took place on 31 March 2017. [62] I record that as well as hearing from Mr TM in person, I have carefully read the complaint and response, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of the application for review. There are no additional issues or questions which in my mind necessitate any further submissions from...

7. LCRO 1/2018 SY v LT and LN (17 December 2019) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...that Mr SY had failed to communicate with the beneficiaries as described, the Committee turned to consider what professional standard or standards were engaged. [51] Referring to r 7.1 of Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules), the Committee noted that “a lawyer is required to keep a client informed about progress on the retainer”. It held that “the beneficiaries should also have been kept informed.”3 [52] The Committee conc...

8. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Simes [2012] NZLCDT 4 [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...misconduct and one of unsatisfactory conduct. [2] The misconduct charge alleged that between 28 May 2009 and 23 June 2009, Ms Simes had wilfully or recklessly contravened Rules 11 and 11.3 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (“CCC Rules”). [3] The unsatisfactory conduct charge alleged that between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2009, Ms Simes was a party to offences under Sections 24 and 26 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. [4] The Tri...

9. [2006] NZEmpC AC 54/06 Yuan Cheng International Investment Group Ltd v Buer [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...addressed the decision of Pearce v Attorney-General in respect of the Department of Labour [2005] 1 ERNZ 731. That was a case where the full Court of the Employment Court considered the effect of an amendment to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 on the interpretation of the original section. The Court accepted there were three possibilities that can be gained from the authorities: • The original legislation was ambiguous and therefore the amending legislatio...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 349 KB]

    ...defined in s 241(c)?3 5. If not, did unsatisfactory conduct occur? Background [5] Ms Fendall is a practitioner of many years’ experience who has primarily specialised in representing young people in the Youth Court. [6] Having taken out income protection insurance in 2002, she made her first claim under the policy in September 2009. Her claim was accepted because she was suffering from depression. [7] This was the first claim period of two periods which are under consideratio...