Search Results

1. LCRO 211/2018 AB v CD (3 July 2019) [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...EB, and Ms EB’s company, JJ Holdings Limited ([JJ]), on a property dispute. [2] Ms AB has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee (the Committee) to take no further action in respect of her complaint about Mr CD’s fees when acting on that matter. [3] In her complaint, Ms AB also alleged that Mr CD, in order to settle the dispute, had failed to submit Ms AB’s counteroffer, had failed to give her advice about the alternatives to litigation and had...

2. LCRO 254/2015 CW v QA (13 August 2018) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...matter. Mr QA’s terms anticipate payment within 7 2 days, but he made a concession to Mrs CW. Recognising that she had lost her job and the family was on one income, he told her he was prepared to accept smaller sums in reduction of his fee. Mrs CW decided that she wanted to save and make lump sum payments. She made a payment in August 2014 and another in October 2014, each of $500. That left over $5,000 outstanding. [4] Mrs CW did not make any more payments. [5] Mr...

3. LCRO 195/2014 MC v GK (28 May 2018) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...GK Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] Mr MC has applied for a review of the determination by [City] Standards Committee [X] (the Committee) that the fees charged by him for administering the estate of Mr GK’s wife were not fair and reasonable. The Committee ordered Mr MC to reduce his fees by $13,965.40 and to pay costs to the New Zealand Law Society in the sum of $1,000. In making th...

4. LCRO 221/2016 FN v SB (10 December 2019) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...[14] On 15 September 2015, an invoice was rendered to Ms FN in the sum of $3,400 excluding GST and disbursements. [15] Some additional work was attended to after the invoice had been rendered. [16] On 21 March 2016 Ms FN made request to uplift her files. [17] Ms FN took issue with the fee charged. [18] She indicated that she was not prepared to pay the full amount of the invoice rendered but offered a payment of $1,500. [19] Mr SB responded with indication that he would be prepare...

5. [2024] NZEmpC 135 Chantama v McKerchar Lamb Limited and other(s) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...33 hours of Mr McKerchar’s time at a rate of $120 per hour. No basis was provided in support of the additional 6.5 hours that have been claimed. A total costs award of $10,460 is claimed by the first defendant for its previous legal counsel fees, accountant fees and Mr McKerchar’s time. [10] Mr Brown, counsel for the plaintiff, submits that a costs award of $1,908 is reasonable in the circumstances in accordance with category 1, band A of the Guideline Scale for steps 8, 1...

6. [2018] NZLCDT 24 Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Ellis [pdf, 558 KB]

   ...relevant words of which are: “Due to circumstances and the fact that there is no other solution to my issue besides setting up a trust, (at least that has been my understanding from all our communications) I have decided to ask you to close my file. I will be coming to collect it from your office. .......” [9] The respondent replied to his client by email on the same day as set out below: “Dear M… Thank you for your email earlier today. At the moment you (sic) account w...

7. LG v Hakaoro [2013] NZIACDT 23 (03 April 2013) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...associated with it. The material appears to denigrate a particular national group, attributes serious criminal conduct to professional people who made a well supported complaint, and fails in any sensible way to address the complaint. [28] Mr Ka filed a memorandum dated 15 March 2012 with the Tribunal. The memorandum questioned whether Mr Hakaoro should “file a defence” as the complaint was: [28.1] Clearly a fraud and forgery. [28.2] Invalid under the Act. [28.3] The applicatio...

8. LCRO 127/2017 EZ v UO [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...[19] Mrs EZ filed an application to review the Committee’s decision on 3 July 2017. [20] Her application raises some matters which were not put before the Committee. [21] I am not able, on review, to address fresh complaints. [22] Subsequent to filing her review application which was supported by detailed submissions, Mrs EZ filed further submissions. I have considered all the submissions filed. [23] In essentially restating the nature of her complaints, Mrs EZ submits that: (a...

9. [2021] NZEnvC 070 Seafort Holdings Limited v Far North District Council [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TAMAKI MAKAURAU IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Court: Judge J A Smith Decision [2021] NZEnvC 0-=/-0 an appeal against objection to fees charged under s 358 of the Resource Management Act 1991 SEAPORT HOLDINGS LIMITED (ENV-2021-AKL-010) Appellant FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: Last case event: On the papers in Chambers under s 279 of the Act Email from Far North District Council, 10

10. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v Telecom NZ 4451 [2013] NZCOP 15 [pdf, 146 KB]

    ...notices, but they did not do so. What Sum should be paid to the Applicant? [35] Under s.122O of the Act, if the Tribunal orders payment of a sum under s.122O(1), the sum specified is to be determined in accordance with the Copyright (Infringing Filing Sharing) Regulations 2011 (“the Regulations”). Any sum awarded must include a sum in relation to every infringement identified in the enforcement notice that the Tribunal is satisfied was committed against the rights owner at an I...