Search Results

1. XT v TT & C Ltd [2024] NZDT 622 (24 July 2024) [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...restrictions I proceeded with the charades to see how a major Insurance company manipulates an individual into making them feel responsible and get them to pay, to the point where I’m now threatened. … The claim against Mr TT Did Mr TT owe a duty of care to Mr XT? 17. The law of tort imposes a duty of care not to cause foreseeable harm to property belonging to another. The applicant has to show that Mr TT owed Mr XT a duty of care, breached the duty, and caused damage. 18. Th...

2. LCRO 28/2021 RW v BD and Law Firm A (3 May 2022) [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...legal executive. The Standards Committee determination [23] The Standards Committee identified four issues arising from Mr RW’s complaint:9 a. Whether Mr BD and/or [Law Firm A] failed to provide in advance and in writing the necessary client care information and information on the principal aspects of client service for the work completed in relation to the purchase of the Property (r 3.4 and 3.5 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (...

3. LCRO 137/2018 A1 v B2 (26 November 2018) [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...concerning conduct on the part of Ms B2. Background [2] Ms A1 and Mr JB are K’s parents. They separated and both formed subsequent relationships. Although the Family Court allowed Mr JB unsupervised overnight contact, Ms A1 continued to care for K and Mr JB felt himself excluded. Mr JB challenged Ms A1 through the Family Court, seeking to extend his involvement in K’s upbringing. The Court appointed a lawyer for K. [3] Ms A1, who was represented by lawyers, latterly Ms LL...

4. FS v UR LCRO 247 / 2010 (12 October 2011) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...Practitioner was subsequently amended to identify the complaints as involving excessive charges and the failure to provide a letter of engagement. The notification letter referred the Practitioner to Chapter 3 of the Rules of Conduct and Client Care, in particular to Rule 3.4 (which required a lawyer to provide a client with information about the client service), and Rule 3.7. which excludes the application of 3 Rule 3.4 where „….the lawyer is instructed by another lawyer...

5. Cations v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 403) [2018] NZREADT 66 [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...to remove the sign, which he did on 27 December 2016. [5] The Committee found that by erecting the sale sign before the Agency Agreement came into effect, Mr Cations breached r 9.6 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (“the Rules”), which provides that: Unless authorised by a client, through an agency agreement, a licensee must not offer or market any land or business, including by putting details on any website or by placing a sign o...

6. LCRO 68/2022 YE v AL (23 May 2023) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...the advice provided to Mr AL when acting for him on the purchase of a property in City A, was unsatisfactory. [2] The Committee found that Mr YE had breached rr 3, 5.3, 6 and 7.1 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules)1 and that Mr YE had engaged in unsatisfactory conduct as defined by s 12(b) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act). [3] Mr AL has applied for a review of the Penalty determination issued subsequentl...

7. Complaints Assessment Committee 408 v Colin Boyer [2017] NZREADT 43 [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...were listed on a Century 21 advertisement for 10 Gwenand Place. 11 Ms Anthony also queried Mr Cloete regarding advertisements that had Mr Boyer’s details. Mr Cloete advised her that he was looking after the properties but Mr Boyer would take care of the sales. 12 Mr Cloete ran the open homes for the Gwenand Place properties. 13 Mr Cloete presented an offer for 10 Gwenand Place. 14 Mr Boyer knew that: (A) Mr Cloete had obtained the listings for Gwenand Place. (B) Mr Cloete...

8. Wallace v CAC 20006 & Ors [2014] NZREADT 24 [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...property was sold for $3,650,000 but, to effect settlement, the complainants needed to return the wardrobes to the property. The Committee’s Findings [4] The Committee found: [a] Regarding the wardrobes, that the licensees should have taken more care and confirmed the exclusion or otherwise of the wardrobes, particularly, given they had been put on notice about the uncertain status of the wardrobes at an early stage. The licensees had not attached enough importance to the wardrob...

9. BD v CE on behalf of GI & HJ LCRO 214/2012 (28 November 2014) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...determinations be published, and that BD be identified as the practitioner who was subject of the complaints. [8] It is clear from the Committee’s decision that the significant factor in its decision to support publication was the perceived protection that publication would provide to the public and the consumers of legal services:1 The Committee had cognisance of the fact that the practitioner had not previously been found to have breached professional standards and of the likel...

10. Fourth-UPR-Recommendations_FINAL_Redacted-v2.pdf [pdf, 616 KB]

    ...Although our responses to the recommendations are not legally binding, acceptance carries a significant moral and political force. Supporting and implementing a large number of the recommendations will improve our domestic human rights protections and support our reputation as an international leader in the field of human rights. It will also demonstrate New Zealand’s support for the multilateral rules-based system and the importance of open and transparent engageme...