Search Results

1. [2024] NZIACDT 28 - EM v Ma (4 December 2024) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...the payment of all or any of the costs or expenses of the investigation, inquiry, or hearing, or any related prosecution: (h) an order directing the licensed immigration adviser or former licensed immigration adviser to refund all or any part of fees or expenses paid by the complainant or another person to the licensed immigration adviser or former licensed immigration adviser: (i) an order directing the licensed immigration adviser or former licensed immigration adviser to pay re...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hart [2012] NZLCDT 20 [pdf, 455 KB]

   ...professional misconduct”. It seems that this discussion with Mr Tomlinson took place in about August of 2007. 26 May 2008 [10] Complaints Committee No. 2 resolved pursuant to s 99 of the Law Practitioners Act 1982 (“LPA”) to investigate the fees charged. On 30 June 2008 that resolution was advised to the practitioner. 1 August 2008 [11] The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act commenced and the transitional provisions came into effect.” [28] On 17 July 2008 the respondent solic...

3. TT v KEN [2019] NZIACDT 64 (11 September 2019) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...unsuccessful in obtaining the job in New Zealand, he withdrew his instructions to New World and sought a refund. [3] The complainant made a complaint against the adviser to the Immigration Advisers Authority (the Authority), seeking a refund of the fees paid to New World. The refund was eventually made. [4] The Registrar of Immigration Advisers (the Registrar), the head of the Authority, alleges that the adviser breached the Licensed Immigration Advisers Code of Conduct 2014 (t...

4. Keegan v CAC 10062 & Peacocke & Stanaway Real Estate [2012] NZREADT 35 [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...costs pursuant to s 93(1)(i). Stanaway Real Estate and Ms Peacocke appealed the decision finding them guilty of unsatisfactory conduct. [2] The matter comes before the Tribunal because contemporaneously with these appeals the Keegans have commenced civil proceedings against the agency and against the vendors of the property. These proceedings are now in the High Court and inter alia seek damages for breach of contract. Mr Bigio for the respondents submits that the appeal proceedings s...

5. Naidu v Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (Costs) [2018] NZHRRT 33 [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...Andrews [2015] NZHC 745, [2015] 3 NZLR 515. For the purpose of the present case we mention only the following: [6.1] A flexible approach can be taken by the Tribunal to costs. See [60]. [6.2] There must be caution about applying the conventional civil costs regime in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See [61]. [6.3] The Tribunal has broad powers to do justice even if this means departing from the conventional rules applying to civil proceedings. See [62]. http://www.legislation.gov...

6. Arthur v The Proprietors of Potikirua Incorporation - Potikirua Incorporation (2019) 225 Waiariki MB 63 (225 WAR 63) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...entitlement upheld. The Committee have put the valid Court order to the side to allow someone to investigate a potential claim against that order. Some might say they have chosen to ignore the Court order. That has costs Ms Arthur a lot in lawyers’ fees. [22] Fortunately, the matter did not proceed to a hearing nor were any major steps required which would have incurred even further costs. In fact, everything was agreed to by telephone. [23] While acknowledging that Ms Arthu...

7. LCRO 170/2019 ZY v LN QC (23 April 2021) [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...the High Court costs decision would stand unchallenged, in light of the Court of Appeal’s rejection of the High Court’s position. [95] The Judge then addressed Mr LN’s argument that, in reliance on rr 48(4) and 53J of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, the High Court costs order remained in place, unless specifically set aside. [96] The Judge rejected that submission, on grounds that the Court of Appeal decision had not merely “adjusted” the decision of the lower co...

8. LCRO 84/2024 XA v MQ (25 February 2025) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules). [2] The Committee censured Mr XA and ordered him to tender an apology to Mrs MQ in terms to be approved by the Committee. [3] Mr XA was also ordered to reduce his fees to $4,384.39 (including GST and disbursements) by refunding the sum of $3,047.50 to Mrs MQ. [4] The Committee also imposed a fine of $8,000 and ordered Mr XA to pay costs in the sum of $1,500. 2 [5] In the section of the applic...

9. [2024] NZIACDT 11 - UT v Lawlor (11 March 2024) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...Mr Lawlor had: (1) Failed to respond to the complainant’s request to check the application status herself, in breach of cl 1 of the Code. (2) Failed to provide the complainant with an invoice containing a full description of the services the fee related to, in breach of cl 22. 1 UT v Lawlor [2024] NZIACDT 5. 3 (3) Failed to maintain a hard copy and/or electronic file for the complainant, in breach of cl 26(a). (4) Failed to maintain a well-managed filing system, in br...

10. [2022] NZEnvC 260 Tasman District Council v Awaroa Aerodrome Limited [pdf, 3.1 MB]

    ...[19] We address that issue to clarify the position to the extent possible. [20] There are two relevant definitions referred to in paragraph [54] of the Interim Decision. The first of these is “Commercial” which means involving the payment of fees for hire or reward. The second is “Commercial Activity”. The basis on which the Court found that the Airstrip activity constituted a commercial activity was based on Rule 17.8.2.1(a)(ii) TRMP which (in summary) requires that the...