New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Misconduct

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2023

BARRY EDWARD BRILL v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 [2023] NZCA 465 [22 September 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZCA 465
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed legal points were not of sufficient merit or general/public importance: the statutory scheme confines employed/in‑house lawyers to providing regulated services in the course of employment absent specified exceptions; applicant undisputedly provided regulated services otherwise than in the course of his employment and the neighbours he represented fell within 'the public'; the questions raised did not warrant Court of Appeal consideration.
6 Sept 2023

TENNET v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 [2023] NZHC 2500

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2500
Court

High Court

The High Court concluded the Tribunal's overall penalty was excessive in length though not in kind: the appellant's wilful dishonesty toward a vulnerable client and deletion of a report justified suspension but, having weighed mitigation (long prior service, character references, personal/psychiatric material and practical impacts of suspension), the least restrictive proportional penalty was nine months' suspension; the Tribunal's costs orders were properly exercised and were upheld.
21 Nov 2022

BRILL v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 [2022] NZHC 3036

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3036
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Tribunal had statutory and inherent power to treat the hearing as part-heard and to permit amendments subject to natural justice; s 9 prohibits an employed lawyer from providing regulated services to the public other than in the course of employment and 'being an employee' is assessed by ordinary employment criteria, so Brill's conduct in acting for his wife and neighbours constituted misconduct; s 31(1) did not entitle him to practise on his own account so as to avoid s 9 because s 31(3) and practice rules restrict resumption after long absence; breaches of Client Car…
3 Aug 2022

ROBINSON v COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE OF THE TEACHING COUNCIL OF AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND [2022] NZCA 350

Citation

[2022] NZCA 350
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to bring a second appeal was declined because the proposed grounds did not disclose an arguable question of law of sufficient importance to justify further appeal; the District Court correctly found no legal error in the Tribunal's handling of particulars, on‑the‑papers procedure, application of burden/standard of proof, or penalty assessment.
24 Aug 2021

AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 4 v SCHLOOZ [2021] NZHC 2185

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2185
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Disciplinary Tribunal did not err: having found the misconduct at the high end for speech-based misconduct, the Tribunal reasonably set a six month starting point and appropriately discounted two months for admission, mitigation and lack of prior disciplinary history; a four month suspension, censure and costs were within the Tribunal's discretion and upheld to protect the public and maintain professional standards.
31 Mar 2021

LIM v REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY [2021] NZHC 689

Citation

[2021] NZHC 689
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the Tribunal correctly held that Committee 412 erred by taking into account irrelevant matters (including credibility contests and a prejudicial gloss regarding sexual abuse complaints) when deciding not to prosecute; the Tribunal was right to allow the appeal and remit the complaint back to the Committee for reconsideration, but was not empowered on the appeal to make a final finding of misconduct.
22 Mar 2021

HONG v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 5 [2021] NZCA 85

Citation

[2021] NZCA 85
Court

Court of Appeal

Further evidence application refused as not fresh and not an opportunity to relitigate factual findings; none of the proposed questions met the high s 254 threshold because they were essentially factual or not of sufficient legal importance; Tribunal and High Court applied correct legal tests (fitness to practise, standard of proof) and did not breach Evidence Act s 50; compensation for emotional harm was a permissible form of loss under s 156 and no reasonably arguable question of law arose.
12 Nov 2020

HONG v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE NO 5 [2020] NZCA 561

Citation

[2020] NZCA 561
Court

Court of Appeal

The statutory definition of 'trust account records' is sufficiently broad to include client files and documents relevant to trust accounts; reg29 required production and assistance to inspectors notwithstanding client instructions; reg33 protects confidentiality of inspectorate material but does not negate the production obligation; refusal to produce in these circumstances amounted to reckless conduct amounting to misconduct; the Court of Appeal declines leave because no question of law of sufficient general or public importance capable of bona fide and serious argument was demonstrated.
13 Oct 2020

BURCHER v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE [2020] NZHC 2677

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2677
Court

High Court

Although appellant achieved partial success, the appeal vindicated both parties to an extent and the Tribunal's overall finding of misconduct was upheld, so success was evenly shared and costs should lie where they fall.
7 Aug 2020

POMEROY v AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 1 [2020] NZHC 1986

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1986
Court

High Court

The failure to comply with the Standards Committee's statutory s147(2)(a) direction and repeated non-engagement constituted unsatisfactory conduct; unsatisfactory conduct does not require wilfulness or recklessness, and the appellant's unproven, self‑reported ill health mitigated but did not excuse liability or the imposition of censure, a $5,000 fine and costs.