Lukas v ZE [2019] NZLCRO 139 (30 October 2019)

Last Updated: 24 June 2020

LCRO 38/2019

LCRO 151/2019

CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006

_AND

CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X]

BETWEEN YURI LUKAS

_Applicant

AND ZE

_Respondent

_MINUTE

The names and identifying details of all but the applicant in this minute have

_{been changed.}

[1] This matter was initially scheduled for an applicant only hearing on 17 October

2019.

[2] On 16 October, Mr Lukas sought an adjournment on medical grounds for at least one week. His application was supported by a medical certificate which certified that Mr Lukas was unfit for work for 1-2 days from 16 October.

[3] The hearing was adjourned and rescheduled for 23 October.

[4] On 21 October, Mr Lukas sought a further adjournment, again supported by a medical certificate, advising that Mr Lukas was unfit for work for up to 5 days from

21 October.

[5] That hearing was adjourned sine die.

[6] On further inquiry by the Review Officer as to Mr Lukas’ medical condition, he

advised by email on 22 October, that new medication prescribed by his doctor may

2

need up to two weeks to take effect, and that thereafter he would need to have further tests, which may indicate adjustment to his medication was required.

[7] On 29 October, I advised the parties that the Review would be completed on the material to hand, as provided for by s 206(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act

2006.

[8] Mr Lukas responded by email four minutes later. He advised he was fully recovered, and expressed the view that he thought the hearing was much better in person. Mr Lukas’ recovery is somewhat at odds with the information provided in his email of 22 October.

[9] Section 200 of the Act requires any review to be conducted with as much expedition as is permitted by

(a) the requirements of the Act; and

(b) a proper consideration of the review; and

(c) the rules of natural justice.

[10] Notwithstanding Mr Lukas’ opinion, I consider the review can be conducted on the papers and meet the criteria required by s 200. I also consider that the requirement for the reviews to be conducted expeditiously is significant for the respondents, given the determination made by the Standards Committee that money be refunded to them.

[11] I therefore formally confirm (pursuant to s 206(2) of the Act) that the review will be conducted on the papers, and a decision issued in due course.

_{DATED this 30}TH _{day of October 2019}

O Vaughan

Legal Complaints Review Officer