Tribunal Decisions – December 2025

SC v Wharekura [2025] NZIACDT 54

What the Tribunal found

The Tribunal found that Mr Wharekura breached clauses 1, 2(e), 17(a), (b) and (c), 19(e), (h), (i), (k), (l), (m) and (n), 22, 26 (a)(iii), (b), (c), and (d) of the Code of Conduct for the following conduct:

• Failing to be diligent and was unprofessional in informing the complainant he was trying to get Immigration NZ to reconsider the decision when he made no such request, in breach of clause 1 of the Code. 
• Failing to provide and explain the professional standards and complaint documents, in breach of clauses 17(a), (b) and (c).
• Failing to provide a compliant written agreement, in breach of clauses 19 (e), (h), (i), (k), (l), (m) and (n). 
• Failing to provide the application for review before lodging, in breach of clause 1. 
• Failing to confirm material discussions in writing, in breach of clause 26(c).
• Failing to carry out the complainant’s instruction (to remove his partner from the application), in breach of clause 2(e). 
• Failing to provide Immigration NZ’s letters, in breach of clause 1.
• Failing to provide the decline letter in a timely manner, in breach of clauses 1 and 26(b).
• Failing to respond to all of Immigration NZ’s requests for information, in breach of clause 1.
• Failing to provide all communications from Immigration NZ in the client file, in breach of clauses 1 and 26(a)(iii).
• Failing to provide invoices, in breach of clause 22.
• Failing to maintain a well-managed filing system, in breach of clause 26(d).

Outcome of the decision

Mr Wharekura was formally warned and ordered to pay $2,500 to the Registrar and $8,240.44 to the complainant within one month of the decision.

LN v Rabuku [2025] NZIACDT 53

What the Tribunal found

The Tribunal found that Ms Rabuku breached clauses 1, 22, 24(a), (b) and (c), 25(a), (b), (e) and (f), 26(a), (c), (d) and (e), 28(a) and (c) of the Code of Conduct for the following conduct:

• Failing to be professional, diligent and conduct herself in a timely manner as she did not respond to the complainant’s communications or lodge the application within a reasonable and expected timeframe, in breach of clauses 1 of the Code. 
• Failing to confirm termination of her services in writing to the complainant, in breach of clause 28(a). 
• Failing to fully update the complainant on the status of the immigration matter and advise the couple where they could get assistance if she did not continue to act, in breach of clause 28(c).
• Failing to provide the complainant with an invoice containing a full description of the services, in breach of clause 22. 
• Failing to ensure that all refunds were fair and reasonable in the circumstances, in breach of clauses 24(a). 
• Failing to ensure the refund obligations could be met, in breach of clause 24(b).
• Failing to promptly provide any refund payable upon completing or ceasing the contract for services, in breach of clause 24(c).
• Failing to recognise that the client funds remained the property of the complainant until payable and invoiced, in breach of clause 25(a).
• Failing to establish and maintain a separate client account for receiving and holding all client funds paid in advance, in breach of clause 25(b). 
• Failing to withdraw client funds only when payments for fees and/or disbursements were payable and invoiced, in breach of clause 25(e) of the Code. 
• Failing to use client funds only for the purpose for which they were paid to her, in breach of clause 25(f). 
• Failing to maintain a hard copy and/or electronic file for the complainant, in breach of clause 26(a).
• Failing to confirm in writing to the complainant the details of all material discussions, in breach of clause 26(c).
• Failing to maintain a well-managed filing system, in breach of clause 26(d). 
• Failing to maintain the client file for a period of no less than seven years from closing the file and make the record available on request by the Authority, in breach of clause 26(e).

Outcome of the decision

Ms Rabuku was formally warned and prevented from reapplying for a licence until she successfully completes Toi Ohomai’s LAWS 7015 (Professional Practice). She was also ordered to pay $5,000 to the Registrar within one month of the decision. 

CE v Asici [2025] NZIACDT 49

What the Tribunal found

The Tribunal found that Ms Asici breached clauses 1 and 18(b) of the Code of Conduct for the following conduct:

• Failing to be explain all significant matters in the written agreement to the complainant, in breach of clause 18(b) of the Code. 
• Failing without good reason to include correct information in the visa application, in breach of clause 1.
• Failing to provide a draft of the completed application to the complainant for review before lodging it, in breach of clause 1. 

Outcome of the decision

Ms Asici was cautioned and ordered to pay $500 to the Registrar within one month of the decision.

BL v Schoeller [2025] NZIACDT 43

What the Tribunal found

The Tribunal found that Ms Schoeller breached clauses 1, 15(b) and 18(b) of the Code of Conduct for the following conduct:

• Failing to provide the terms of engagement to the complainant in a timely manner, in breach of clause 1 of the Code. 
• Failing to explain to the complainant the terms of engagement, in breach of clause 18(b).
• Failing to provide to the complainant accurate advice as to whether she could obtain another interim visa, in breach of clause 1. 
• Failing to be professional in communications with the complainant, in breach of clause 1. 
• Failing to follow her internal complaints process when the complainant complained, in breach of clause 15(b).

Outcome of the decision

Ms Schoeller was cautioned and ordered to pay $2,000 to the Registrar within one month of the decision.

KU v Wang [2025] NZIACDT 41

What the Tribunal found

The Tribunal found that Ms Wang breached clauses 14, 18(a) and (b), and 26(c) of the Code of Conduct for the following conduct:

• Failing to provide the complainant with evidence of being licensed, in breach of clause 14 of the Code. 
• Failing to provide to the complainant a written agreement, in breach of clause 18(a).
• Failing to explain to the complainant all significant matters in the agreement, in breach of clause 18(b). 
• Failing to confirm in writing to the complainant the details of all material discussions, in breach of clause 26(c).

Outcome of the decision

Ms Wang was censured and ordered to pay $2,500 to the Registrar within one month of the decision.

New decisions are appearing regularly, and I encourage you to save the following link as a bookmark. 

Recent Tribunal decisions(external link) — Justice website