Search Results

1. LCRO 65/2017 IR v NW and EN (18 April 2019) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...the part of Mr NW, in that he charged a fee which was greater than the Committee considered fair and reasonable for the services he had provided to the estate. In reaching that determination, the Committee considered the evidence and submissions filed by both parties, weighed and balanced that and reached conclusions that supported the determination the Committee had made. [6] Neither party applied to this Office for a review of the first decision. Mr NW refunded money to the esta...

2. 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...

3. 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...

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. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. AQ v ZF LCRO 243/2012 (26 March 2014) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...although the legal services were primarily provided by Ms RW because her expertise better suited the AQs’ needs. [3] After the police investigation concluded with no charges being laid, Ms RW sent the AQs an invoice. The AQs paid part of the fee, but became reluctant to pay the balance saying they were not satisfied with the advice they had received from Ms RW. Mr AQ wrote to Ms ZF, criticising Ms RW’s handling of the matter. Mr AQ was particularly aggrieved at the way in wh...

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. LCRO 24/2019 UC v SO (30 September 2020) [pdf, 156 KB]

    ...complaint was only about the misplaced memory stick and not about the lack of receipt and invoice for the payment of $1,500 to Ms PT. [11] He says the payment was made to Ms PT after the meeting with the police and says that there is a receipt on file for that sum. Mr UC also says: In my view Mr SO is clearly harassing Ms PT (and myself). He is misusing legal process to further his own ulterior purpose or using the process in an improper way. His claims are fictitious, groundle...