Search Results

1. LCRO 13/2021 ZW v HN (25 November 2021) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...Mr ZW’s frequent representations that work on the statement of claim was in hand and progressing when that was clearly not the case. (f) Mr ZW’s failure to respond to concerns that the lack of activity on the file was concerning. 20 [101] Mr ZW submitted that part of the explanation for the delay, was attributable to instructions he says he received from Legal Aid to refrain from continuing to work on Mr HN’s file, until investigations were completed into establishing whet...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 198 Head v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department [pdf, 388 KB]

   ...42 “Employment Court of New Zealand Practice Directions”, above n 2, sch 4. Two claims for item 29; two claims for item 30; and one claim for each of items 27, 31 and 32. 43 Items 27, 28, 30, 31, and 32. 44 Items 29 and 30. [101] The plaintiffs submit that the correct figure for the joinder application was $6,448 on a 2B basis. The plaintiffs also submitted that no allowance should be made in respect of the representative claim, although the plaintiffs’ failed in...

3. LCRO 15/2021 JBC Limited v KD (24 August 2021) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...attached a handful of correspondence and a copy of Mr LE’s affidavit. 18 Although Mr KD’s letter of engagement was not issued until 4 July 2017, I am satisfied that Mr KD was engaged in giving advice about the matter from May 2017, 16 [101] Mr KD also drew a comparison between the fees that he charged, and the High Court Rules’ 2B scale, which produces an outcome very similar to the fees he charged, yet those fees included two other sets of proceedings (injunction and ca...

4. [2021] NZEmpC 215 Stewart v AFFCO NZ Ltd [pdf, 318 KB]

   ...over various issues, including as to the correct application of provisions under the HA, and that these remain to be determined by the Authority, I have no basis for concluding that he was locked out on 5 July 2021 because of these claims. [101] In the result, I am satisfied Mr Stewart was unlawfully locked out. Issue two: circumstances if Mr Stewart had been on a fixed-term contract [102] The second issue raised by the parties’ submissions related to the potential applicat...

5. IPT 2020-21 Annual Report [pdf, 520 KB]

   ...Appeals 30 June 2013 30 June 2014 30 June 2015 30 June 2016 30 June 2017 30 June 2018 30 June 2019 30 June 2020 30 June 2021 Tribunal Average (days) 247 228 208 201 175 175 274 353 194 Residence 240 134 173 116 60 101 76 98 32 Deportation (Non-resident) 228 230 184 127 90 89 121 141 76 Refugee and Protection 329 248 215 159 137 98 142 162 79 Deportation (Resident) 425 425 361 500 574 481 604 856 951 Comparative Graph Show...

6. LCRO 173/2021 KC v TG (6 May 2022) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...indicated. [100] This view is reinforced by the consumer protection focus of the Act, predicated on the basis that there is a knowledge imbalance between lawyer and client, which a lawyer has a duty to ameliorate to the fullest extent possible.15 [101] Monthly or event billing by a lawyer to some extent meets that requirement. [102] Indeed, Mr KC acknowledged that in circumstances where he has been the client of a lawyer, event billing by his lawyer has been useful both as to noting...

7. IPT 2021-22 Annual Report [pdf, 526 KB]

   ...2013 30 June 2014 30 June 2015 30 June 2016 30 June 2017 30 June 2018 30 June 2019 30 June 2020 30 June 2021 30 June 2022 Tribunal Average (days) 247 228 208 201 175 175 274 353 194 226 Residence 240 134 173 116 60 101 76 98 32 76 Deportation (Non-resident) 228 230 184 127 90 89 121 141 76 131 Refugee and Protection 329 248 215 159 137 98 142 162 79 173 Deportation (Resident) 425 425 361 500 574 481 604 856 951 857 Comparati...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 233 Baillie v The Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...plaintiff was awarded $20,000 and Marx v Southern Cross Campus Board of Trustees where $25,000 was awarded where the harm included the plaintiff also being unable to face others.21 Those cases set the lower paramount of the range he identified. [101] Mr McKenzie also relied on Rayner v Director-General of Health to set the upper parameter for his comparative cases. In that case the plaintiff suffered humiliation and a sense of letting down his family, with an aggravating feature b...

9. [2023] NZIACDT 4 – TC v MacLeod (7 February 2023) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 7 Section 50. 8 Section 51(1). 9 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151]. 10 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 9, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 12 From the Registrar [50] The Tribunal has received from the Registrar the statement of complaint (16 March 2022), with supporting bundle of documents. From the complainant [51] There is a statement o...

10. [2022] NZREADT 23 - CAC 1904 v Bright (8 November 2022) [pdf, 278 KB]

    ...seriously negligent real estate agency work”. Work of that nature would also involve a marked and serious departure from particular standards; the 8 Section 110. 9 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [101]–[102], & [112]. 10 Morton-Jones v Real Estate Agents Authority [2016] NZHC 1804. 12 standards to which s 73(b) is directed are those relating to competence and care in conducting real estate agency work. [30] This is...