Search Results

1. [2007] NZEmpC AC 31/07 Pradeep v Star Mart Service Station Ltd [pdf, 18 KB]

   ...counsel for Star Services to give the Court details about disbursements. [7] Mr Pradeep wrote to the Court on 17 November 2005 apologising for his failure to appear on 3 November 2005 citing medical reasons and advising that he would be filing his appeal papers “by Monday”. However, he has not taken any further steps. [8] I am advised by the Registrar that the costs application was sent to Mr Pradeep’s last known address for service but was returned with address unknown....

2. [2015] NZEmpC 207 Keepa v Go Bus Transport Limited [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...defending those proceedings. That award was confirmed in the judgment of the Court on 12 October 2015. [5] The Court has a wide discretion on the matter of costs. The Court generally relies upon the principles established in three Court of Appeal decisions. 3 Principles which generally apply are that costs will follow the event, and as a rule of thumb a starting point of two-thirds of actual and reasonable costs incurred by the successful party will apply. [6] In exercisi...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 116 Air NZ Ltd v Kerr [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...Documents is required, such reference be made before a closed courtroom (save for the defendant’s counsel, the plaintiff’s counsel, any of the plaintiff’s witnesses, the presiding Judge and the Court Registrar); (e) Subject to any appeal, that any copies of the Confidential Documents provided to the Court and/or to the defendant’s counsel will either be returned to the plaintiff’s solicitors or, in the case of the electronic copies, permanently deleted, immediat...

4. CAC 10053 v Beiszer [2011] NZREADT 5 [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...disgraceful conduct under s 73(a). [12] Accordingly for the brief reasons outlined above the charge of disgraceful conduct under s 73(a) is dismissed. [13] In accordance with s 113 of the Act the Tribunal advises the parties of the right to appeal this decision to the High Court pursuant to s 116 of the Act. DATED at WELLINGTON this 21 st day of April 2011 ______________________________ Judge Michael Hobbs Chairman ______________________________ J R...

5. Auckland Standards committee 4 v Smith [2015] NZLCDT 46 [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...prosecution will form a significant burden to the profession as a whole. The Committee’s costs are in the region of $12,000 and the s 252 costs will be in the region of $4,000. [7] The Standards Committee refers the Tribunal to the English Court of Appeal decision of Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society.1 [8] We cited this decision with approval in our decision in Hall. 2 1 Baxendale-Walker v The Law Society [2007] EWCA CIV 233 at [35]...

6. Auckland Standards Committee v Lee [2015] NZLCDT 42 [pdf, 21 KB]

   ...the following terms. 2 See above n 1 at [32]. 3 Censure [7] Mr Lee, it is not for you as a legal practitioner and officer of the Court to second- guess an order of the Court. If you disagree with the order, the proper process is to appeal it or seek judicial review. Failing either of those courses, you are obliged to comply with any order made against you and your first duty is to the Court. You breached that obligation in this instance as set out in our liability decis...

7. [2014] NZEmpC 24 Bali v SRG No 2 costs [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...reasonable contribution, which Mr Bali should make towards the defendant’s costs and based upon the principles normally applying to such awards in this Court. [7] This Court regards itself as bound by three decisions of the Court of Appeal establishing such principles. 1 The principles normally applying are that costs should follow the event so that the unsuccessful party should make a contribution towards the successful party’s costs. Such costs awards are usually t...

8. BT v YB LCRO 128 / 2010 (26 May 2011) - Costs Decision [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...Committee decision. That right builds on the right to complain about the conduct or service of a lawyer provided by section 130, and reinforces the consumer protection provisions of the Act. 3 [12] An application to the LCRO is not by way of an appeal. There is no requirement to provide grounds for review or adduce evidence in support of the application. [13] A review involves a consideration of all of the material before the Standards Committee including issues of law, fac...

9. CD v XS LCRO 186 / 2010 (27 May 2011) [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...recorded that section 138(1)(f) of the Act provided that a Standards Committee may in its discretion, decide to take no action on any complaint if, in the opinion of the Committee “there is in all the circumstances an adequate remedy or right of appeal …that it would be reasonable for the person aggrieved to exercise.” [10] The Committee therefore considered that the Applicant had remedies available to him through the Court. Review [11] In his application for Review, the...

10. White v Rodney District Council [pdf, 53 KB]

    SUMMARY Case: White & Anor v Rodney District Council & Anor – COSTS DECISION File No: TRI 2007-100-000064/ DBH 01814 Court: WHT Adjudicator: KD Kilgour Date of Decision: 23 April 2009 Background An application was filed by the claimants seeking costs against the second respondent, Mrs Kerkin pursuant to s91 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 (Act). However the claimants were not successful as the Tribunal found that the defences raised by