Search Results

1. [2013] NZEmpC 207 Nee Nee v C3 Ltd [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...emerges during the course of an inquiry into that allegation that the employee may have been guilty of conduct of a different kind, including lying to the employer. That needs to be the subject of a separate set of disciplinary proceedings. [101] In order to undertake a fair and proper disciplinary process an employer is obliged to meet certain minimum standards, including adequately particularising the concerns that he/she has; identifying the potential consequences of a findi...

2. SV v WT LCRO 21/2013 (26 August 2014) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...conduct may affect which specific penalty is selected, depending on which particular function is being met. Costs [100] The LCRO has a broad discretion to order costs pursuant to s 210 of the LCA and the LCRO’s Costs Orders Guidelines. [101] The primary purpose of costs orders under the LCA is to defray the costs of administering the complaints and disciplinary provisions of the LCA, which otherwise fall on all lawyers. [102] After the review hearing a Minute was issued t...

3. DA v EB LCRO 7/2013 (26 August 2014) [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...Ms EB, because under the terms of settlement CR had agreed to pay Ms EB no more than $10,000 plus her employment-related statutory entitlements. 54 As above at n 50. 18 Discussion [101] Rule 9 regulates the fees a lawyer can charge to a client. It does not regulate arrangements between a lawyer and a third party. As CR is not Ms DA’s client, Rule 9 does not apply to Ms DA’s invoice to CR. [102] Independently of...

4. Philpott v Zderich [2011] NZWHT Auckland 16 [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...[100] Mr Peters, on behalf of the fourth respondents, submitted that there have been significant and unreasonable delays by the claimant in having her house repaired. It is argued that Ms Philpott has failed to mitigate her losses. [101] Having dismissed the claims against both fourth respondents, the issue of the failure to mitigate is no longer of any relevance to them. However, the arguments made by Mr Peters have been adopted by Mr Jones, who was at the hearing self-...

5. McDonald v Peters [2012] NZWHT Auckland 39 [pdf, 215 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2009-101-000025 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 39 BETWEEN GREGORY JOHN McDONALD Claimant AND TIMOTHY EDWARD PETERS First Respondent AND BUILDING APPROVALS AND SOLUTIONS LIMITED Second Respondent AND MIKE HISLOP Third Respondent AND NEILL BROWN Fourth Respondent AND CARLTON RICHARDS Fifth Respondent AND NELSON CITY COUNCIL (Removed) Sixth Respondent AND GRAEME SCOTT (Removed) Seventh Respondent AND PHILIP...

6. Overview Trustee Ltd as trustee of the Carrigafoyle Trust v Cook & Anor as trustees of the CC Trust [2011] NZWHT Auckland 35 [pdf, 309 KB]

   ...31/12/08 $899.94 Project economics 30/11/10 $1,725.00 Alexander & Co (Mr Flay) 20/12/10 $4,405.71 Summers 28/2/10 $2129.12 Page | 8 Summers 30/6/10 $4893.48 Summers 30/9/10 $312.69 Summers 22/10/10 $399.13 Summers 26/1010 $6685.92 Subtotal $21,439.99 Total $61,650.92 Claimant’s response to Council [14] The claimant‟s submission is that the claim against the Council did not lack substantial merit. It referred to the evidence of its e...

7. Wakelin and Anor as Trustees for the Get In & Walk Trust v Taupo Texture Coatings Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 43 [pdf, 206 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-101-000023 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 43 BETWEEN GRANT D WAKELIN AND PATRICIA J WAKELIN AND LPT TRUSTEES NO.30 LIMITED as Trustees for the GET IN & WALK TRUST Claimants AND TAUPO TEXTURE COATINGS LIMITED First Respondent AND MARSHALL WATERPROOFING NZ/AUS LIMITED Second Respondent AND TODD ELLIOTT BUILDERS LIMITED Third Respondent AND TAUPO DISTRICT COUNCIL (Removed) Fourth Respondent A...

8. LCRO 38-2015 PF v MF [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...occasions pressing the lawyer to make the documents available to her instructing solicitor, so that discovery could be completed. The law firm was dilatory, but gave as a reason that work was being done to complete particular trust matters. [101] In July 2014, the documents were delivered by the lawyers to Ms GG’s instructing solicitor and from there to Mr PF. 15 Strictly, under the then prevailing rule (r 14.13) the obligation to...

9. LCRO 124-2014 SM v TK [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...solicitor having obtained possession of the passport for a legitimate forensic purpose, was entitled to retain possession against his client, and exercise a lien over it until his proper costs and disbursements were paid or payment thereof was secured. [101] A careful reading of the Xu decision however, gives clear indication that the Court considered that a degree of care needed to be exercised before a lawyer elected to refuse to release a passport. [102] Basten JA, noted that:14...

10. LCRO 110/2017 EB v APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A PROSECUTORIAL DECISION [pdf, 262 KB]

    ...was receiving on her behalf. [100] In my view, the detail of Ms AD’s complaint provides the complete answer to Mr CW’s submission that the Committee ought to have requested, at the very least, a copy of the letter and terms of engagement. [101] Ms AD’s complaint unequivocally states that she did not receive one. There could be no clearer indication to a lawyer facing a complaint, that one of the key grounds of complaint concerned a lack of terms of engagement. [102] It fell...