Search Results

1. NQ & SS v QG & Ors [2024] NZDT 83 (9 January 2024) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...sees fit. Enforcement of Tribunal Decisions If the Order or Agreed Settlement is not complied with, you can apply to the Collections Unit of the District Court to have the order enforced. Application forms and information about the different civil enforcement options are available on the Ministry of Justice’s civil debt page: For Civil Enforcement enquiries, please phone 0800 233 222. Help and Further Information Further information and contact details are available on our we...

2. SN v D Ltd [2022] NZDT 168 (4 October 2022) [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...sees fit. Enforcement of Tribunal Decisions If the Order or Agreed Settlement is not complied with, you can apply to the Collections Unit of the District Court to have the order enforced. Application forms and information about the different civil enforcement options are available on the Ministry of Justice’s civil debt page: http://www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt/collect-civil-debt For Civil Enforcement enquiries, please phone 0800 233 222. Help and Further Informa...

3. KU & UE v TQ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1649 (28 October 2021) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...Limited (“BB”). 12. UU recovered the wreckage and subsequently dismantled the engine. Upon doing so, UU discovered that incorrect sized piston rings were present in various positions and one ring had been fitted upside down. 13. The Civil Aviation Authority (“CAA”) conducted an investigation into the matter. The CAA report appears to be based on the findings made by DT of UU. He concluded that the engine failed from oil starvation due to incorrect rings fitted to the pis...

4. Apostolakis v Attorney-General No. 3 (Costs) [2019] NZHRRT 11 [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...Andrews [2015] NZHC 745, [2015] 3 NZLR 515. For the purpose of the present case we mention only the following: [8.1] A flexible approach can be taken by the Tribunal to costs. See [60]. [8.2] There must be caution about applying the conventional civil costs regime in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See [61]. [8.3] The Tribunal has broad powers to do justice even if this means departing from the conventional rules applying to civil proceedings. See [62]. [8.4] Costs orders should...

5. [2010] NZEmpC 26 Gates v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 30 KB]

   ...and November 2008. I am satisfied from these documents that the costs were actually incurred. [7] The next issue is the extent to which those costs were reasonably incurred. The costs incurred by the defendant consisted entirely of counsel’s fees. Mr Thompson devoted 312.4 hours to the matter at a charge out rate which was initially $250 plus GST per hour and later $275 plus GST per hour. [8] Mr Thompson’s charge out rates were entirely reasonable. Indeed, for counsel of h...

6. LCRO 20/2016 LC and CM v JP (19 March 2019) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...unsatisfactory conduct made in this decision. [64] As discussed with the applicants at the review hearing, the orders under consideration are set out in s 156(1): (a) Censure or reprimand; (b) Mr JP apologise to Ms CM; (c) A reduction to Mr JP’s fees (proportionate to the unsatisfactory conduct); (d) Cancellation of Mr JP’s fees (in their entirety); (e) A refund to the applicants of part or all of the fee they paid to Mr JP; (f) A fine. [65] The opportunity to provide su...

7. LCRO 45/2020 MN v RK (22 December 2020) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...proceed smoothly. The parties were unable to agree on a number of issues. [9] Eventually the parties reached agreement that Mr GS would purchase Ms RK’s interest in the property. Mr MN was not informed of this proposal. [10] Mr MN rendered fees in the sum of $9,162.63 (GST inclusive). [11] On 25 January 2019, Ms RK filed a complaint against Mr MN with the Lawyers Complaints Service. [12] On 7 February 2019, Mr MN lodged a caveat against the property to protect his fees. [1...

8. LCRO 41/2015 CL v JW and IB (26 June 2018) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr CL has applied for a review of a decision by the Area Standards Committee (the Committee) which determined his complaint about conduct on the part of Mr JW and Ms IB (the lawyers), and the lawyers’ fees. As to fees, the Committee concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the complaint because although Mr CL had been given an indication of fees, the fees had not been charged. The Committee concluded that no further action was require...

9. LCRO 330/2013 PR v RW (17 July 2017) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...initial instructions to act; Correspondence; Telephone and personal attendances; Liaising with Police and Police Prosecutions; Receiving, reviewing and advising on full Police disclosure; and Attending [Area] District Court as required. Fee $325.00 + GST. [4] In July 2011 Mr PR was convicted on drug charges and sentenced to a period of imprisonment. Mr RW did not act for Mr PR in defending those charges but did act for him on various matters thereafter including: (...

10. LCRO 261/2016 TJ v DM and ZP (26 September 2019) [pdf, 196 KB]

    ...were made extending the time that Mr TJ was required to make maintenance payments to Ms TJ. [8] In May 2013, the Court issued directions that Mr TJ was to pay costs towards the maintenance of the family home, contribute to the costs of dental fees for one of the children, and make contribution to Ms TJ’s costs. [9] Mediation was arranged in an attempt to settle the relationship property issues. [10] On 19 September 2013, the parties reached a settlement which was formalise...