Search Results

1. LCRO 227/2015 ZM v KT [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...on by a Standards Committee when it decides, in the course of a conduct inquiry, that it requires further information from the practitioner. [5] Mr ZM did not comply with the s 147 request. 2 [6] In due course, charges were laid with the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal). [7] One of the charges was that Mr ZM had failed to comply with the s 147 request. [8] Ms KT was, at the relevant time, employed by the New Zealand Law Society as a...

2. LCRO 105/2018 SW v NL (23 August 2019) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...settlement. [16] On [date] 2017 Ms SW’s lawyer objected to Mr NL retaining the sale proceeds in the firm’s trust account. Mr NL ceased acting for Mr RA the following day. Complaint [17] Ms SW lodged a complaint with the Lawyers Complaints Service on 1 September 2017. She alleged that when acting for her and Mr RA on the sale of the property Mr NL (a) did so notwithstanding that Mr RA’s and her respective interests were in conflict, (b) unfairly and unethically handled her...

3. HL v MA and RO LCRO 83/2013 (3 August 2016) [pdf, 64 KB]

   ...a consequent appeal to the District Court after his review application was later declined. The essence of Mr [HL]’s complaint is his assertion that the lawyers capped their fees then billed him more than they had agreed to, and that Mr [RO]’s service was substandard. Complaint 2 [3] Mr [HL]’s complaint of 19 September 2012 alleges that the firm had unfairly overcharged him, having indicated his total costs including medical experts would be capped at $5,000. He also alle...

4. Tan v Chief Executive Ministry of Social Development (Non Party Access to Tribunal File) [2016] NZHRRT 2 [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...Attorney-General v Human Rights Review Tribunal [Judicial Review] (2006) 18 PRNZ 295 at [47], private enforcement proceedings have since 2001 assumed significant importance in the legislative scheme. [17] It is not necessary for the present context to address the other statutory provisions which relate to the dispute resolution process but they are listed for ease of reference: 77 Dispute resolution services 78 Method of providing services 79 How complaints received to be treated 7...

5. Rautangata v Rautangata - Opuatia No 6D No 2D Block (2011) 27 Waikato Maniapoto MB 252 (27 WMN 252) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...Waikato Maniapoto MB 255 Who Paid for the Dwelling? Applicant’s Evidence [9] The applicant’s evidence was that her relationship with Doug began in 1993. At that time she worked for the Tuakau Medical Centre and then for Special Education Services. On 20 December 1996 Doug took voluntary redundancy from New Zealand Steel and from that time had no formal employment or any regular income. Doug received approximately $7,500.00 per annum from leases of part of the land for...

6. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 2 v Withers [2013] NZLCDT 54 [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...Mr Withers failed to follow the coaching programme put in place by Mr Mackintosh. [16] It was submitted that collectively the steps noted above should ensure that the public interest was met. [17] Mr Withers’ involvement in community service was also noted as being a matter the Tribunal should take into account, as was some medical evidence which was said to provide background to the offending the subject of the charges. [18] As to penalty, the submission for Mr Wither...

7. LL v Sun [2019] NZIACDT 3 (30 January 2019) [pdf, 253 KB]

   IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2019] NZIACDT 3 Reference No: IACDT 016/16 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 BY THE REGISTRAR OF IMMIGRATION ADVISERS Registrar BETWEEN LL Complainant AND JIANYA SUN Adviser DECISION Date: 30 January 2019 REPRESENTATION: Registrar: S Carr, counsel Compla

8. Notman v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZACA 01 [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...short IRD list). 10 [54] Mr Notman has not satisfied the criteria under the 1972 or 1982 Acts for ERC. OUTCOME [55] The appeal is dismissed and the decision of the reviewer confirmed. [56] Costs are reserved. Either party may address this issue within 21 days of the decision. If submissions seeking costs are filed, the other party may reply within 14 days. ___________________ D J Plunkett

9. Brown v Progressive Enterprises Ltd (Strike-Out) [2024] NZHRRT 10 [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...identifiable prohibited ground of discrimination is pleaded or disclosed in Mr Brown’s claim. Therefore, the allegations in the claim do not constitute discrimination in breach of s 44 (that prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods and services) or of s 65 (that prohibits indirect discrimination). [8.2] Mr Brown has not pleaded any facts that give rise to a reasonably arguable case that the PEL employees’ comments constitute “less favourable treatment” and that...

10. Steele v Community Leisure Centre Ltd (Strike-Out Application) [2019] NZHRRT 9 [pdf, 254 KB]

    ...sexual nature by the WAC café worker, that details about the incident were circulated to staff at the WAC and that the café worker’s remarks and the circulation of information to staff had a detrimental effect on his rights to receive goods and services and to access places and facilities. [12] On 7 October 2016, Mr Steele was served with a trespass notice by the Police. The notice warned him to stay off the WAC. 3 Strike-out application [13] The application to strike-...