AP v ZK LCRO 66 / 2010 (16 February 2011) [pdf, 84 KB]
...made. [2] The Committee‟s decision further noted that a meeting between the parties in November 2008 had resolved many of the matters in issue, but as the Applicant nevertheless wished to pursue his complaints (which included complaints about fees charged by the Practitioner), the Committee thereafter resolved that one of two bills of costs should be subjected to a costs assessment. The other bill fell below the threshold for consideration and the Committee could find no spec...