Search Results

1. LCRO 242/2014 HW v DL [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...obliquely addressed the conflict of interests arising between the various parties when it addressed the failure by the respondent to decline to act for all parties. [19] Rule 6.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules) provides: A lawyer must not act for more than 1 client on a matter in any circumstances where there is a more than negligible risk that the lawyer may be unable to discharge the obligations owed to 1 or more of th...

2. Shropshire v March LCRO 64 / 2010 (28 October 2010) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...responses of the parties, the Standards Committee determined, pursuant to section 152(2)(c) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act), to take no further action with regard to the complaint. The Committee perceived the Conduct and Client Care Rules relevant to the complaint were 2.3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13 and 13.3. [2] The Applicant sought a review of the Committee‟s decision on the basis that the “Standards Committee erred in fact and in law”. He particularly chall...

3. LCRO 156/2016 KZ v XL on behalf of [Company A] (18 January 2019) [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...another lawyer, Mr BN, supporting her approach. He described his experience in dealing with leaky building claims, including acting for local authorities such as the Council. [43] Mr BN said that “the proposal to transfer the claim requires careful consideration to ensure that it doesn’t weaken the claimant’s case”. He considered that where limitation issues might arise it is important to obtain “agreement with the defendant’s solicitors prior to the transfer that any...

4. [2016] NZEmpC 91 Khurana v Singh [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...would be responsible for pursuing such an action. In default, Mr Singh could raise these issues at the same time as he sought an order authorising him to continue with his proceedings against Corporate Energy. However, Mr Singh would need to give careful consideration to costs incurred in pursuing any such claim against the directors in this way. Even if successful, any recovery procured from the directors might simply have the effect of providing funds for distribution to all of...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 21 Baillie v The Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki - Ministry for Children [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...Baillie also points to the lack of any agreement from Oranga Tamariki to place Mr Baillie on “garden leave” pending determination of his substantive claim. [32] Oranga Tamariki points to its obligations to provide the highest possible level of care to some of New Zealand’s most vulnerable children and young people and that reinstating Mr Baillie on an interim basis would not give those vulnerable people a sense of feeling safe. Oranga Tamariki says that any loss of remunerati...

6. Singh v Devi [2011] NZIACDT 22 (7 July 2011) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...Conduct developed pursuant to section 37 of the Act (published www.iaa.govt.nz) is also material. Section 44(2) makes a breach of the Code grounds for upholding a complaint. [3] Clause 1 of the Code requires a licensed immigration adviser to, with due care, diligence, respect and professionalism, perform his or her services, act on proper instructions, and pursue their clients’ interests. That clause also requires personal documents to be secured and returned to a client. Factual Iss...

7. Orsborn v CAC 20006 & Warwick Collier & JVL Prestige Realty Ltd [2012] NZREADT 73 [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...as “3.4782 hectares more or less”. The Committee’s Assessment of the Licensee’s Conduct [15] The Committee was of the view that the licensee’s conduct breached Rule 6.4 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2009 (Rules) so that it amounted to unsatisfactory conduct pursuant to s.72(b) of the Act. We now set out both Rule 6.4 and s.72 of the Act as follows: 4 “6 Standards of professional conduct 6.4 A licensee must...

8. [2023] NZIACDT 14 - II v Sun (26 April 2023) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...Visa), for the complainant and associated visas for his wife and their child. The complainant was the principal applicant. [7] Immigration New Zealand (Immigration NZ) completed an initial assessment of the application and wrote to the complainant, care of Mr Sun, on 18 November 2019, setting out numerous concerns with the application. He was invited to provide further information. [8] On 28 November 2019, Ms M, an employee of Heytour in China, rang the complainant (who was in Ch...

9. LCRO 179/2017 VB, CB & ON v QT (14 June 2018) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...which allows a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) to conduct the review on the basis of all information available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [24] 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 neces...

10. Auckland Standards Committee v Morahan [2015] NZLCDT 29 [pdf, 459 KB]

    ...There are six charges remaining. (a) Charge one is an allegation of misconduct by wilfully or recklessly acting for a client without an instructing solicitor in breach of Rule 14.4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (“the Rules”).2 (b) Charge three is an allegation of misconduct by misleading the Court, opposing counsel, and/or the Standards Committee, by asserting in written correspondence and Court documents that Mr Thompson...