Search Results

1. Terms of Reference Appendix [pdf, 705 KB]

   ...Introduction 3 1.2 | Statutory authority 3 1.3 | Purpose and Scope 4 SECTION 2 | Method 6 2.1| The audit programme 6 2.2| Selecting providers for audit 6 2.3|Overview of the audit process 6 2.4| Appointing an auditor 7 2.5| Selecting files for audit 8 2.6| Assessment of files 8 SECTION 3 | Audit ratings and risk factors 10 3.1 | Rating scale 10 3.2 | Key risk factors 10 SECTION 4 | Audit criteria 12 4.1 | General criteria 12 4.2 | Specific criteria | Civil /Crimina...

2. Terms of reference [pdf, 701 KB]

   ...Introduction 3 1.2 | Statutory authority 3 1.3 | Purpose and Scope 4 SECTION 2 | Method 6 2.1| The audit programme 6 2.2| Selecting providers for audit 6 2.3|Overview of the audit process 6 2.4| Appointing an auditor 7 2.5| Selecting files for audit 8 2.6| Assessment of files 8 SECTION 3 | Audit ratings and risk factors 10 3.1 | Rating scale 10 3.2 | Key risk factors 10 SECTION 4 | Audit criteria 12 4.1 | General criteria 12 4.2 | Specific criteria | Civil /Crimina...

3. Otago Standards Committee v Rayner [2014] NZLCDT 62 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...that time M gave the practitioner his eftpos card and pin number, and that two tobacco purchases were made by the practitioner on behalf of M. [3] The various allegations and supporting particulars are set out in full in the charge as laid and filed with the Tribunal. They are summarised as follows: (a) About 28 February 2012, M gave the practitioner his eftpos card and pin number, which the practitioner took so as to be able to use it to pay costs for legal work he had done or was...

4. LCRO 156/2016 KZ v XL on behalf of [Company A] (18 January 2019) [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...Council (the Council) was better suited to the District Court than to the WHT. Although limitation issues can also arise in the District Court, this was not an issue with [Company A]’s proceedings in that jurisdiction. [6] In July 2012 [Company A] filed, but did not serve, proceedings in the District Court against the Council in relation to the leaky building (the District Court proceedings). At the time that it filed the District Court proceedings [Company A] had some general a...

5. OT v XQ Ltd [2024] NZDT 619 (22 August 2024) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...be obtained from the Ministry of Justice, Disputes Tribunal website. The Notice must be filed at the District Court of which the Tribunal that made the decision is a division, within 20 working days of the decision having been made. There is a $200 filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside of 20 working days if you have been granted an extension of time by a District Court Judge. To apply for an extension of time you must file an Interlocutory Application on Notice and a suppo...

6. HI v D Ltd and FB [2024] NZDT 26 (20 February 2024) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...originally sought $135.85 to cover mileage to travel from [Town] to attend the Disputes Tribunal hearing in [City 3]. As the hearing took place by way of teleconference, that claim was not pursued further. HI was seeking $90.00 for the Disputes Tribunal filing fee and $2.500.00 for aggravated / exemplary damages for stress and inconvenience. 11. The issues the Tribunal has to consider are: a. Did FB and / or D Ltd breach the Fair Trading Act 1986 (“FTA”) by giving misleading...

7. LCRO 194/2020 WQ and QZ v [Company A] (29 March 2022) [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...Firm A], an incorporated law firm (the firm), which acted for [Company A] (the company), on the purchase of a dairy farm property and livestock. Mr VR and Mrs VR were the shareholders of the company.1 Mr VR’s complaint was about the firm’s fee for acting on the purchase. In particular, about the inclusion in the fee of a percentage charge based on the purchase price paid by the company for the farm property. The [Area] Standards Committee [X] (the Committee), which heard the c...

8. [2013] NZEmpC 96 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...15 High Court Rules, r 14.2(d). [40] In addition, I order the payment of such disbursements certified by the Registrar of the Employment Court. The plaintiff would be entitled to the filing fees and daily hearing charges he incurred. The other disbursements are simply based on a percentage adopted by Bell Gully and do not, in my view, represent the actual disbursements incurred. B S Travis Judge Judgment

9. Walker v Sinclair - Lot 9 DP 44307 (2013) 62 Taitokerau MB 203 (62 TTK 203) [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE L R HARVEY Introduction [1] Ngaio Walker seeks a determination of the status of the land known as Lot 9 DP 44307 per ss 18(h) and 18(i) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (“the Act”). The applicant has also filed an application for special aid per s 98 of the Act. [2] The application was heard by me on 19 July 2012 at Whangarei. At the time I indicated that I was simply present to take evidence and that the matter would be referred back to Judge...

10. Form 32 - Family legal aid - Tax invoice - Care of Children / Guardianship [pdf, 509 KB]

    ...lead provider Provider number Name of law firm Firm number Details of claim Date latest activity completed Date of final disposition (if final invoice) Interim invoice Final invoice Please record the number of fixed fees for repeatable fee activities, activities based on anticipated hearing time, and hearing time activities. Number of fixed fees Fixed fee (excl. GST) Total fixed fees (excl. GST) Application(s)/Order(s) Application(s)/Or...