Search Results

1. Family Court Rewrite Submission - ADL [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...families notified of its availability at different stages in the process. It could be recommended to families that would benefit from it, without it causing an additional burden. For example, there can be significant challenges in organising extra childcare for Deaf and Disabled Children who have high and complex needs around their disabilities and impairments. ADL fully supports the recommendations about accessibility and reviewing content and delivery. We hope the review would con...

2. LCRO 113/2020 SM v YL (7 May 2021) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...made the following findings against Mr YL: (a) He failed to act competently and in a timely manner consistent with the terms of his retainer and the duty to take reasonable care. (b) He failed to follow Mr SM’s instructions. (c) He failed to protect and promote Mr SM’s interests. 1 Although Mr YL’ clients were the two trustees of the T Trust, Mr SM was authorised to deal directly with Mr YL and instruct him on behalf of both trustees. For ease of reference in this decision...

3. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Sheat [2023] NZLCDT 50 (7 November 2023) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...“reckless” in the s 7(1)(a)(ii)2 definition of misconduct. Mr Mortimer-Wang submitted that Mr Sheat’s admission of a “wilful” breach necessarily implied calculated dishonesty. 1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 2 LCA. 3 [5] Elements of both calculation (or miscalculation) and dishonesty feature in Mr Sheat’s misconduct but we do not find him guilty to the level imported by the harsh glare of the term “calculated...

4. [2023] NZEnvC 264 Fleet v Ashburton District Council [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...[1] This matter concerns additional charges levied by the Respondent under s 36 of the Act in relation to a non-complying activity consent application filed by the Appellant, Ms Fleet. [2] Ms Fleet applied for consent to undertake works on a protected tree located on her property at 30 Queens Drive, Ashburton. That application was ultimately declined although that is of no moment to these proceedings. [3] Ms Fleet paid the sum of $1,332 by way of a non-notified non-complying s...

5. BN v MV & KT [2023] NZDT 534 (5 October 2023) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...went through with MV which should have elicited a disclosure in these circumstances, including a number of specific references to flooding or water damage. She said she underscored the importance of disclosure to MV and went through the document carefully. 14. In response to this MV said that she would not consider water and clay in the garage to be flooding, but rather that it was seepage from a heavy rainfall. She also said that there had never been water in the house, but only the...

6. LR v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for overseas rehabilitation costs) [2023] NZACC 29 [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...classified as 98%. His twin died in utero. [3] On 11 October 2017, a treatment injury claim was filed on the appellant’s behalf. The claim was for “brain injury, skin injury, kidney injury” and related to an alleged delay in obstetric care. The claim was lodged on the basis that there had been a failure to recognise and treat twin to twin transfusion syndrome (“TTTS”) and arrange an earlier delivery. [4] On 6 July 2018, the claim was investigated. It was confirmed th...

7. BX v DG & MX [2024] NZDT 378 (26 June 2024) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...of sanity”. BX also produced a written statement from UK, who had previously had possession of [the horse] with a view to selling him for DG before MX’s agency commenced. UK said that [the horse]’s manners had improved when he had been in her care, but that he had bucked her off on one occasion “for no reason” and had felt somewhat like “a ticking time bomb”. On other occasions, he had been “super”. She would not have been comfortable selling him to a beginner or a nervous...

8. Auckland Standards Committee v Clews [2014] NZLCDT 19 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...practitioner had already breached privilege with his “eagerness” to assist. [24] Mr McCoubrey submitted on behalf of the Standards Committee that this was not to be considered a “simple error”. He submitted that the fundamental nature of the protection of a client’s privilege in relation to his communications with his legal representative means that a breach of such must be far along the continuum of professional misbehaviour. [25] We accept that submission. A client m...

9. Auckland Standards Committee v Banbrook [2014] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...purposes of a disciplinary hearing the Tribunal could certainly consider context, as established by the practitioner and have regard to any mitigating factors. However, Mr Hodge pointed out that the Summary of Facts was a lengthy, detailed, and careful document agreed after lengthy negotiation between the prosecuting authority and the practitioner at a time when he was being represented by a Queens Counsel. 6 Banbrook v The Queen...

10. LCRO 264/2016 YQ v VG [pdf, 174 KB]

    ...school’s interests were entirely consistent with Ms YQ’s. As mentioned earlier, the employer was responsible to all of its employees, including Ms YQ, and to the school’s students and their parents. Those multilateral obligations required careful management based on sound advice, which in turn relied on a comprehensive grasp of the relevant facts. [33] The materials available on review, including the parties’ presentations at the review hearing, disclose no basis for the...