Search Results

1. ABJ Ltd & ABK v ZYT Ltd [2012] NZDT 66 (21 August 2012) [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...BN offered to provide accounting services for both applicants free for two years. On 2 May, ABK emailed BN asking if his offer still stood and BN replied on 5 May that it did. Arrangements were then made to start the process of the Applicants’ files being transferred over from their previous accountant. Around July, a dispute arose between CB and ZM over retention of an amount of the purchase price and this dispute is being resolved separately by private arbitration. On 1 December,...

2. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v Clarkson [2014] NZLCDT 29 [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...failed to comply with the Court’s directions; failed to attend Court when required; and failed to respond to enquiries and requirements of the Court. [3] The Tribunal heard submissions from Mr Gilbert on behalf of the applicant. The Respondent filed a submission and made a personal statement to the Tribunal. [4] The Tribunal retired to consider the orders sought. It announced its unanimous decision that Ms Clarkson was to be struck off the roll of barristers and solicitors and m...

3. Robinson v CAC 20006 & Wagner [2014] NZREADT 68 [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...unsatisfactory conduct and we gave our reasons in some detail. We indicated that we were minded to increase the Committee’s fine (for unsatisfactory conduct) from $500 to $2,000 but revoke the censure finding of the Committee. Parties were instructed to file submissions should they disagree with the penalty we had indicated. The Committee had imposed a censure on the licensee and a fine of $500. 2 [2] On 21 August 2014, the licensee appealed our unsatisfactory conduct fin...

4. Banbury v Selkirk LCRO 47 / 2010 (2 June 2010) [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...of North Island Applicant AND MR SELKIRK of North Island Practitioner The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION The complaint [1] In October 2009 a complaint was filed by Mr XX on behalf of Mr Banbury. Throughout I shall refer to Mr Banbury as “the Applicant” since he is the person cited referred to as the complainant. The complaint was against Mr Selkirk (the Practitioner) and also cited his law...

5. Rugby v Auckland Standards Committee LCRO 67 / 2010 (12 July 2010) [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...Practitioner was invited to forward his written submissions by 5pm on 11 March 2010. He did not send any submissions within this timeframe. [8] Due to a delay the hearing took place about a week later that scheduled. A note on the Standards Committee file records a discussion with the Practitioner on 7 April 2010 which covered the delay and noted that he was informed that the Committee had already met and decided its next step. This meant that by the time of the phone contact the...

6. Lothian v Alloa LCRO 148 / 2009 (26 November 2009) [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...this was not a particularly complicated employment matter. Ms Alloa has not suggested otherwise and the costs assessor treated the matter as a routine employment issue. It was noted that because the employee (through his advisor) had elected to file directly in the Employment Relations Authority some additional attendances (such as filing a formal statement of reply) were needed. However, the assessor noted that even if this had not been the case he considered that the quantum of th...

7. Tabram v Slater [pdf, 17 KB]

   ...clear presumption in the Act that costs lie where they fall unless incurred unnecessarily as a result of either bad faith or allegations that are without substantial merit. [2] The first, second and fourth respondents to these proceedings filed applications for costs. The application by the first respondents (“the Slaters”) was dismissed in my substantive decision delivered on 17 April 2009. The costs applications by the second and fourth respondents were filed on 5 May 2...

8. Abyaneh v Auckland City Council [pdf, 20 KB]

   ...determination regarding the subject dwelling was delivered on 22 July 2008 whereby the claimants were awarded the sum of $43,629.13 against the first, second, third and the fourth respondents. 2. This decision therefore deals with applications filed by the second respondent (Mr Asad Ali), first respondent (Auckland City Council), and the third respondent (Mr Said Haroun Ali) in that sequence, for an award of costs against the claimants. Legislation 3. Section 91(1)...

9. LCRO 101/2017 RF v QC [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...do the work. He says he will pay, but not in advance. Review Hearing [11] The parties attended a review hearing by telephone on 23 August 2017. Mr RF’s connection was terminated unexpectedly so he was offered, and took, the opportunity to file further submissions. Those were provided to Mr QC who did not respond. Nature and scope of review [12] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … t...

10. PAUP Residential Standards Yards/Fences/Walls [pdf, 152 KB]

    ...Council (the Council) on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan, now the Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part). [2] Ryman Healthcare Limited and the Retirement Village Association of New Zealand (Ryman/RVA) and Housing New Zealand Corporation (HNZ) filed appeals under s 156(1) of the LGATPA. [3] The appeals challenge the Council's decisions on the 'front, side, rear fences and walls' standards in the Auckland Unitary Plan (H3.6.12, H4.6.14, H5.6.15 and H6.6.16). S...