Search Results

1. Strickland v Gaensicke [2011] NZWHT Auckland 46 [pdf, 273 KB]

   .............................................................................................. 26 WAS SHINGLE AND SHAKE ROOFING LIMITED (SSRL) NEGLIGENT? . 29 WAS MR BURROWS NEGLIGENT WHEN INSPECTING THE PROPERTY AND ISSUING THE PRODUCER STATEMENT? ....................................... 30 DID ROGER FRANKS OWE THE CLAIMANTS A DUTY OF CARE? IF SO HAS HE BREACHED THAT DUTY OF CARE? ........................................... 34 DOES MR KARL GAENSICKE (KARL) OWE THE CLAIMANTS A DUTY OF C...

2. Legal Complaints Review Officer v Morrison [2018] NZLCDT 40 [pdf, 339 KB]

   ...penalties of suspension have routinely been imposed by the Tribunal in cases involving instances of deception and falsification of documents by lawyers. (f) The only significant factor is Mr Morrison’s previously unblemished record in his lengthy career. [5] Mr Collins submitted that, as the seriousness of the conduct is the starting point in consideration of the relevant factors, the Tribunal must consider that the falsification of the Deed was not a minor or incidental matter....

3. AT v RN LCRO 47/2015 (29 September 2016) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...understanding of the outcome of the complaint. (b) Subject to any overriding duty to the Court, a lawyer's duty is to his or her client not the person on the other side of the dispute. (c) Mr [RN]’s duty was to his own client. He had no duty to protect and promote the interests of Mr [AT] or Mr [EC]. (d) Mr [RN] had been retained to consider his client's position, in the context of the available facts and the relevant law, to set out the legal position as he saw it and to...

4. NL v Joseph [2020] NZIACDT 6 (31 January 2020) [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...containing the mandatory items specified in the Code. The agreement sets out such critical matters as the services to be performed and the fees. It also provides notification to the client of the professional Code and the complaints process. It protects not just the client, but the adviser as well. [53] I uphold the fourth head of complaint. Mr Joseph is in breach of cl 18(a) of the Code. (5) Failing to maintain copies of all written communications between himself, the compl...

5. LCRO 70/2020 FL v TP (8 October 2020) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...decision maker considers it either necessary or desirable to do so, it inevitably follows that applicants are required to provide explanation of their circumstances. [60] The evidential burden on applicants should not, consistent with the consumer protection focus of the Act, be unduly onerous, but nor should the burden be negligible. [61] An applicant’s failure to lodge their application in time must be demonstrably linked to circumstances which, examined reasonably and carefully,...

6. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Harder [2022] NZLCDT 29 (23 August 2022) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...that he failed the fit and proper test. [56] The Stanley decision was one concerned with the assessment of fitness in connection to admission to the Roll of Barristers and Solicitors itself. [57] The Court undertook what was described as “a protective exercise focused on either the need for public protection or the maintenance of public confidence in the profession…” and declared “...the approach is not punitive”. [58] Nor need the current assessment be punitive. Howe...

7. Central Standards Committee 3 v Bailey [2023] NZLCDT 53 (5 December 2023) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...to the public because of the pattern of his offending. [32] Jacobsen7 was a worse case than the present because, although the practitioner commenced a rescue package to avoid her mother losing a loved holiday home, the practitioner failed to protect her mother’s interests, as she’d promised, and structured arrangements so she obtained personal benefit. Her mother suffered no financial loss. The practitioner had no prior disciplinary history and was remorseful. She admitted t...

8. [2025] NZIACDT 33 - KM v Jiang (16 June 2025) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...8. Failed to have proper file management. [19] In mitigation, Mr Jiang pointed out: 1. There was no financial loss or adverse immigration outcome. The outcome would have been similar if the misconduct had not happened. 2. His breaches were careless, not deliberate. 3. His misconduct was technical and administrative, in that there was no dishonesty or negligence. 4. He responded to the Authority’s enquiries with the utmost good faith and admitted misconduct. 5. This was the...

9. [2024] NZIACDT 29 INZ v Li (6 December 2024) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...No party seeks an oral hearing. ASSESSMENT [39] The Registrar relies on the following provisions of the Code: General 1. A licensed immigration adviser must be honest, professional, diligent and respectful and conduct themselves with due care and in a timely manner. Client Care 2. A licensed immigration adviser must: a. maintain a relationship of confidence and trust with the client and provide objective advice … c. facilitate the provision of interpreters and translat...

10. [2024] NZIACDT 30 INZ v Li (6 December 2024) [pdf, 250 KB]

    ...No party seeks an oral hearing. ASSESSMENT [35] The Registrar relies on the following provisions of the Code: General 1. A licensed immigration adviser must be honest, professional, diligent and respectful and conduct themselves with due care and in a timely manner. Client Care 2. A licensed immigration adviser must: a. maintain a relationship of confidence and trust with the client and provide objective advice … c. facilitate the provision of interpreters and translat...