Search Results

1. LCRO 42/2022 QA v Kennelly - Publication decision (1 August 2023) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...decision is the impact that publication would have on Mr Kennelly’s interests and privacy. Mr Kennelly has not made any submission directed to this factor and his abbreviated response to my request for submissions would indicate that he does not care much about the possibility of publication, other than the statement that the decision should not be published. 6 Kennelly response to application for review (27 April 2022) at [24]. 7 A gift of $130,000 to enable Mr and Mrs M to sec...

2. 20240514-Oranga-Tamariki-Repeal-of-Section-7AA-Amendment-Bill [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...Oranga Tamariki interacts.10 18. Oranga Tamariki has made commitments to maintain all current Strategic Partnership Arrangements entered into and intends to continue to enter into new agreements to help tamariki and rangatahi to thrive in the care and protection of their whānau, hapū 6 Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 4(g). 7 Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 4(h). 8 Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, s 448B. 9 Waitangi Tribunal, The Oranga Tamariki (Section 7AA) Urgent Inquiry Report (Wai 3...

3. Canterbury-Westland Standards Committee 2 v Fordyce [2025] NZLCDT 27 (11 June 2025) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...we have considered Mr Matsis’ submission without regard to those precedents which had not considered his submission. [9] We are not persuaded to gloss the statutory words in the way contended by Mr Matsis. The provision has the purpose of protecting the reputation of the profession. When members of the public learn that a lawyer has been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment, they are entitled to draw inferences about the profession without being put on inquiry ab...

4. Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club Ltd - Horowhenua (11) Lake (2013) 304 Aotea MB 288 (304 AOT 288) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...5. Long Term: This is a matter to be addressed at some point in the future. We agreed that the legislation for whatever reason is confusing and probably anachronistic in need of a revamp. Clearly that is a matter that would need to be managed very carefully so as not to have any adverse impact on the beneficial owners’ existing legal interests. Happy to discuss any of the above with you by phone if you wish. Otherwise we look forward to your response regarding funding. Kind...

5. RH v LV LCRO 189 / 2011 (25 September 2012) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...evident from its decision that the Committee’s perception that the Practitioner had embarked on an ill-conceived adventure was relevant to its conclusion that the practitioner had ‘chosen to ignore’ the intervention rule. Its reference to the protective function of that rule implied that had there been an instructing solicitor such a step would not have been taken. Of particular concern to the Committee was that this conduct related to a draft Statement of Claim found on the P...

6. Complaints Assessment Committee 404 v Kumandan, Kumandan v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 404) [2018] NZREADT 51 [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...guilty of misconduct because of a wilful or reckless contravention of the Act. Breach of R 6.2 and or R 6.4 [32] The question arises whether the rules impose any obligation on a licensee in the course of carrying out his/her duties to protect the position of a bank. Of course, an agent would be under an obligation to refrain from conniving at, assisting in or carrying out activities amounting to mortgage fraud. For example, if an agent knowingly drew up an agreement whi...

7. [2020] NZREADT 21 - Hanford (12 May 2020) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...1 Jackman v CAC 10100 [2011] NZREAD 31, at [65]. See also Complaints Assessment Committee 414 v Goyal [2017] NZREADT 58, at [28]–[32]. 2 Section 3(1) of the Act. 3 Section 3(2). conduct in the industry, the need for consumer protection and the maintenance of confidence in the industry, and the need for deterrence, both in relation to the licensee concerned, and the industry as a whole. [17] A penalty should be appropriate for the particular nature of the misbehavi...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Kejriwal [2022] NZLCDT 24 (20 July 2022 [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...5. Prospects of rehabilitation [56] We reminded ourselves that the purpose of disciplinary proceedings is not punitive. Rather we focused on the issue of amenability to rehabilitation. [57] The key question is whether the primary purpose of protecting the public can be achieved in any way other than strike-off. That reflects the principle of the least restrictive intervention, to achieve the purposes of the legislation.7 [58] In the Shousha decision, at [56], her Honour quoted f...

9. NT v Parker [2019] NZIACDT 62 (4 September 2019) [pdf, 289 KB]

   ...application, so it was expected that Immigration New Zealand would properly assess the credibility of the claimed points. If it was now saying that the complainant was not eligible to claim the points, then the expression was not assessed with due care. It was unreasonable to raise a character issue that was ultimately the result of an error by Immigration New Zealand. The complainant’s declaration that she met the criteria for the claimed points was truthful from her perspective...

10. Wiezoreck v McHugh [2013] NZIACDT 35 (4 June 2013) [pdf, 240 KB]

    ...concerns regarding Ms McHugh’s compliance with the Code. [68] Soliciting a non-refundable fee, which may be higher than is fair or reasonable, in itself raised serious questions of integrity. [69] Any attendant non-compliance designed to obscure the protections the Act and the Code afford to clients would bear upon the same issue. [70] An overestimation of immigration prospects when soliciting non-refundable fees would be an additional factor bearing upon integrity. [71] These issu...