Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 031 Friends of Conical Hill Inc v Hurunui District Council [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...photographing in and around the court for other purposes 4.10 �Reporting restrictions 5.0 �Courts with special media provisions 5.1 Supreme Court 5.2 Family Court 5.3 Youth Court 5.4 Waitangi Tribunal 5.5 Coroners Court 5.6 �District Court civil proceedings 5.7 �High Court civil proceedings 6.0 Access to court information 6.1 �Court information vs Ministry of Justice information 6.2 �What does the term ‘document’ mean? 6.3 Searches and search rules 6.4 Fees...

2. LCRO 64/2018 IG v PC (1 August 2018) [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...approached Ms G to act for him in relation to personal grievances against his employer, S Ltd. Ms G arranged for Mr IR to act as her instructing solicitor. 2 [5] Mr IR, Ms G and Mr E all agreed that Ms G would invoice Mr E directly for her fees and that Mr IR, as instructing solicitor, would have no responsibility for paying those fees. [6] The personal grievances were resolved by a settlement agreement following a mediation between Mr E and S Ltd in [date]. [7] A dispute aro...

3. MC v BL [2013] NZIACDT 8 (28 February 2013) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...threshold for an adverse disciplinary finding. [5] Mr MC presented his offer of employment as regular. The circumstances became somewhat rushed, and Ms BL has frankly acknowledged she should have been more thorough and accordingly fully refunded fees to Mr MC. The lapse does not reach the threshold for an adverse disciplinary finding. [6] The indication Mr MC could not lodge a complaint was in the context of a settlement. The issue was no more than unfortunate wording in the context o...

4. LCRO 20/2019 OT v GA (25 January 2021) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...response [15] Mr GA’s response was comprehensive and there is no need to record this to any great degree. Suffice to say, that Mr GA does not accept the validity of Mr OT’s complaints. Mr GA also advised that Mr OT had not paid any of the fees rendered by him over an extended period,4 which by February 2018 amounted to $44,083.35.5 The Standards Committee determination The issues [16] The Standards Committee identified four issues to be addressed:6 (a) Not identifying the...

5. KBN v Wharekura [2019] NZIACDT 80 (9 December 2019) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...significant consequences for Mr Wharekura professionally and personally. He had about 40 open files at the time it became clear that interim suspension was inevitable. These clients have now been handed over to others. In doing so, he has refunded fees in excess of $7,000 and expects to refund as much as $20,000. He would have expected to create revenue of about $100,000 annually, if he was able to continue practicing. Without question the most difficult part of addressing the...

6. [2020] NZIACDT 25 - RV v Aiolupotea (12 June 2020) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...[1] Mr Salesa (Charles) Aiolupotea, the adviser, acted for Mr [RV], the complainant. He undertook to seek a visitor visa and citizenship for the complainant. Mr Aiolupotea did seek a visitor visa, but not citizenship, despite taking a significant fee. In reality, the complainant was not eligible for citizenship. [2] A complaint against Mr Aiolupotea was made by the complainant to the Immigration Advisers Authority (the Authority). The Registrar of Immigration Advisers (the Regis...

7. [2022] NZEnvC 042 Wilson v Waikato Regional Council [pdf, 309 KB]

   ...including anything you have recommended to the applicant of its advisers or consultants. [7] This summons is issued on behalf of Ohinau Aquaculture Ltd, the applicant in the proceedings. [8] You are entitled to receive from the applicant, witness fees, allowances, and travelling expenses (as required) according to the scale of allowances for witnesses in civil cases under the District Courts Act 2016. [9] If you fail to attend in accordance with this summons, you commit an offen...

8. Reid v CAC 20002 & Cox and Cox v CAC 20002 & Reid [2013] NZREADT 68 [pdf, 61 KB]

   ...The Evidence of Mr Cox [37] Mr Cox complains that Mr Reid had breached professional standards. Mr Cox felt that Mr Reid had aided Mr Green to defraud Mr Cox of $17,500. We understand that Mr Cox’s concerns have already been dealt with in the civil courts and by the local Law Society but that he feels he has not been fully reimbursed for his costs. He explained that he had a shortfall of at least $12,613 in terms of legal fees, travel, and accommodation expenses. He also felt he sho...

9. Scarborough v Kelly Services (NZ) Ltd (Application for Non-Publication Orders) [2015] NZHRRT 43 [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...threshold is high. See McIntosh v Fisk [2015] NZCA 247, [2015] NZAR 1189 (Harrison, Miller and Cooper JJ) at [1] where the following statement of principle was made: [1] The principle of open justice requires that all aspects of proceedings, both civil and criminal, are conducted in public. It extends to the identification of parties to litigation. Accordingly, a litigant seeking confidentiality in the nature of a name suppression order must show the interests of justice displace the pre...

10. INZ (Gilray) v Croxson [2019] NZIACDT 72 (18 October 2019) [pdf, 142 KB]

    ...his application. Mr E did not know his immigration adviser and had no contract or contact with him. The only communication from Mr Croxson was an email received the day before the interview with Immigration New Zealand. He did not know what fees were paid to him. [12] Similar issues to those raised concerning Mr B on 9 May 2016 were raised by Immigration New Zealand in relation to Mr E, in a letter to Mr Croxson on 20 May 2016. [13] Mr Croxson replied to Immigration New Zeala...