Search Results

1. Kettering v Biggleswade LCRO 212 / 2009 (19 March 2010) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...changed. DECISION [1] The Applicant is a barrister whose professional retainer involving two clients led the Standards Committee to conclude that the Applicant had acted in a conflict of interest in breach of Rule 6.1 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules and that there had been conduct unbecoming on the part of the Applicant. [2] The background is that the Applicant acted for C after she was charged with assault following a complaint to the police by her partner D. In defe...

2. SK and RM v GJ LCRO 36/2015 (14 December 2016) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...tenants in common in equal shares. All other property, including bank accounts, was owned by them as joint tenants. [14] According to Mrs HY, the couple's prime concern by May 2009 was to ensure that the survivor of the two was taken good care of. After the death of the survivor their 3 home should go to Mrs VW, a niece of Mr MT who for some years had taken care of the couple, and did not have a home of her own.1 [15] Mr MT's last will appointed the lawyers as t...

3. NH v Singh LCRO 53/2013, 91/2013 and 115/2013 (27 August 2014) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...to the lender as “she” or “it” in a way that suggested that the lender was not, in fact, QRS. When it appeared Mr NH may be unable to repay the loan on time, Mr Singh was actively involved in registering securities and taking steps to protect the lender’s interests. after 1 August 2008 constituted unsatisfactory conduct pursuant to s 12 of the LCA. [10] The Committee considered Mr Singh was deliberately evasive as to the identity of the lender, and as a director and sh...

4. McKinney v Cassidy [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...upset and loss of enjoyment as a result of the above defects, in the amount of $20,000.00. 4.8 The claims against Mr Cassidy are in tort and based on allegations of negligence. The Owners say that Mr Cassidy owed them a non-delegable duty of care to ensure that all building work was carried out in compliance with the building regulations. They claim that he breached that duty by failing to carry out, or have carried out, the building work in a compliant manner. 4.9 The cla...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Brill [2022] NZLCDT 3 (21 January 2022) [pdf, 557 KB]

   ...Brill’s case is that because his clients were friends and/or neighbours they were “a particular group” and that “a precise group” was the “exact opposite of “the public”. [45] Mr Brill submits that the purpose of s 9 is “… to protect the public against persons holding themselves out as lawyers when not entitled to do so”. And that “the Practice Rules are to prevent non-lawyers from holding themselves out or acting as if they were lawyers, not to prevent law...

6. D Ltd v NN & LN [2024] NZDT 154 (10 April 2024) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...that D Ltd caused this damage. Carpet damage CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 6 32. I find there was no lack of reasonable care and skill with regard to damage to the carpet. NN and LN said that sticky plastic had been laid down by D Ltd to protect the carpet, but that they extended this plastic to provide further protection. When it was removed, it left a sticky residue. 33. However, as D Ltd said, there is no evidence that the carpet is damaged beyond repair. NN and LN sai...

7. Legal aid Family Fixed Fees Schedules [pdf, 870 KB]

   ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26 PATERNITY – GRANTING NOTES .............................................................................................................................................. 29 PROTECTION OF PERSONAL & PROPERTY RIGHTS (PPPR) ................................................................................................ 30...

8. Family Fixed Fee Schedules [pdf, 870 KB]

   ...................................................................................................................................................................... 26 PATERNITY – GRANTING NOTES .............................................................................................................................................. 29 PROTECTION OF PERSONAL & PROPERTY RIGHTS (PPPR) ................................................................................................ 30...

9. Recommendations Recap - Issue 13 [pdf, 988 KB]

   ...http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0038/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM5976687#DLM5976687 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2006/0038/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM5977147#DLM5977147 13 seatbelt and the bulldozer did not have a Roll Over Protection System to help protect the driver from crush injuries. Experience Inexperience and a lack of understanding of hazards have been cited as contributory factors leading to deaths at the workplace. In one case a coroner commented...

10. Application for order to administer property - PPPR 6 [pdf, 90 KB]

    r 406 Form PPPR 6 Application for order to administer property Section 11, Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 at ……………………………… [place] ……………………………………………………………………………………….. [full name] ……………………………………………………………………………………….. [address] ……………………………………...