Search Results

1. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 1 v van Noort [2024] NZLCDT 33 (17 October 2024) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...was about [1] Mr van Noort is a now-retired lawyer who held himself out to be an expert in Trusts and means-tested subsidy applications. In February 2020, he was asked to assist the K family in seeking a subsidy for their father’s residential care. The father, TK, had settled a Trust in 2010, but there was very scant record keeping between then and when his children1 sought Mr van Noort’s help. [2] There had been somewhat complicated dealings with TK’s property, including...

2. Director of Proceedings v Nelson [2013] NZHRRT 38 [pdf, 275 KB]

   1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2013] NZHRRT 38 Reference No. HRRT 026/2012 UNDER SECTION 50 OF THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER ACT 1994 BETWEEN DIRECTOR OF PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF AND RUTH NELSON DEFENDANT AT WELLINGTON BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms K Anderson, Member Ms WV Gilchrist, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr A Martin, Director of Proceedings, Plaintiff and Ms H Cook Mr AC Beck for de

3. WL & BN v SD LCRO 106/2015 (5 July 2016) [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr WL1 has applied for a review of the determination by a Standards Committee that Mr WL2 breached rule 13.9 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules3 [2] This review involves a consideration of the application of rule 13.9. The Committee proceeded on the basis that the rule creates a separate obligation to adhere to the rules of privilege generally rather than on the basis t...

4. LCRO 14/2020 CL v BB (18 December 2020) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...services and terminated instructions on 16 November 2018. Mr BB rendered his account in the sum of $3,475 plus GST and disbursements. Ms CL’s complaints [8] Ms CLs letter of complaint summarised the issues that concerned her: “Lack of duty of care – excessive account – $4,171.25, being charged $70 emails to book an appointment and then receive “ok” back.”1 She has analysed the firm’s time records and refers to charges of $70 for minor administrative matters. She...

5. LCRO 14/2020 CL v BB (18 December 2020) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...services and terminated instructions on 16 November 2018. Mr BB rendered his account in the sum of $3,475 plus GST and disbursements. Ms CL’s complaints [8] Ms CLs letter of complaint summarised the issues that concerned her: “Lack of duty of care – excessive account – $4,171.25, being charged $70 emails to book an appointment and then receive “ok” back.”1 She has analysed the firm’s time records and refers to charges of $70 for minor administrative matters. She...

6. 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

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. 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...