Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Castles [2013] NZLCDT 53 [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...the basis of the time expended on their behalf, at particular hourly rates and that he went on to indicate that there was no real means of estimating costs. He says he explained the litigation risk. The W’s do not recall any discussion about fees at this meeting. [11] In the first of two letters to the W’s of 6 December, Mr Castles reported on progress to date in the Shoreham proceedings, noting the instructions were urgent and involved “urgent and extensive attendances”....

2. LCRO 70/2020 FL v TP (8 October 2020) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...absence of proof to the contrary, service of a Committee’s determination is presumed to have occurred on the fifth working day after it is made, given or performed or exercised.1 [6] In order to comply with the statutory timeframe prescribed for filing a review application, Ms FL was required to file her review application on or before 5pm on Thursday 2 April, 2020. [7] Ms FL’s application was clearly filed out of time. Late filed applications for review: Conventional approa...

3. KX and NX v GV Ltd [2022] NZDT 47 (14 January 2022) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...therefore order that GV Ltd pay to KX and NX the reservation fee of $210.00 Are KX and NX entitled to payment of the Tribunal application fee? 14. Section 43 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1986 does not allow the Tribunal to award any party the filing fee unless it is provided for by contract and in certain specific circumstances described in s 43. None of those situations apply here. The claim for payment of the filing fee is therefore dismissed. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Ord...

4. MK v PB LCRO 338/2012 (11 July 2014) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...unrendered (if you have any) e.g. a mortgage over your property. Alternatively, you agree that our fees will be payable from the proceeds of the claim if you succeed at Court or settle beforehand. You will also need to pay all the disbursements such as filing fees when required. [6] With that letter Mr FH also included again the firm’s terms of engagement. [7] Mr PB responded:3 Let’s run with option C thanks and ask the judge to award full costs when we win. [8] In early Ap...

5. NQ & OR v CN [2023] NZDT 436 (11 September 2023) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...success. The following claims are before the Tribunal to resolve. a. NQ and OR seek $5,422.14 which is: i. return of the $5,000 retention; ii. $242.14 which is calculated as interest and penalty for late settlement on the $5000; and iii. $180 filing fee to bring the claim in the Tribunal. b. CN seeks to retain the sum of $1,994.65 from the $5,000 retention which is made-up of the following: i. $210.00 for accommodation; ii. $200 for carpet cleaning; iii. $602.60 for profes...

6. Stroud v Gateshead LCRO 205 / 2009 (24 December 2009) [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...consider the matter or whether the application was not properly made and therefore cannot be considered. [2] Mr Stroud sent an email on 19 November with an application form attached. The original application form was received the next day although no filing fee was attached. After an exchange of correspondence, the filing fee was received on 4 December 2009. [3] Section 198 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 provides that every application for review must: (a) be in the pr...

7. Asad v Patel [2014] NZIACDT 61 (30 April 2014) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...obligations: [2.1] He did not undertake the compulsory steps relating to disclosure and recording in writing the terms of the engagement; [2.2] He delivered the professional services unlawfully using unqualified staff; and [2.3] He failed to refund fees he had not earned. [3] The adviser has not challenged the grounds of the complaint, or offered an explanation justifying or excusing his conduct. [4] The Tribunal has upheld the complaint. The Statement of Complaint [5] The Regis...

8. LCRO 168/2023 KM v ZT (30 April 2025) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...(b) the basis on which fees would be charged (including possibility of default interest) were explained to KM; and (c) conscientious efforts were made to implement a realistic and workable repayment plan; and (d) work required to be spent on the file exceeded what had been initially anticipated as a consequence of incidents which had prompted a further application to the Family Court; and (e) the firm’s credit controller had communicated regularly with KM; and (f) KM had at no tim...

9. [2021] NZACDT 14 - YC v Wan (29 June 2021) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...the complainant, dated 8, 9 and 14 June 2021. He sets out the steps taken by the complainant to rectify her immigration status, leading to her securing a new work visa under s 61 on 7 January 2020. [21] The complainant seeks a refund of the fees paid to Mr Wan ($1,995, plus $495 paid to Immigration New Zealand), as well as reasonable compensation of $8,935.50 made up as follows: Consultation/uplifting file fee (PCW Law) 23/8/2019 $1,537.50 Consultation fee (Advent Ark Lawyer...

10. LA Children's Workers exemption appeals Fee Schedule updated 29 Sep 22 [pdf, 223 KB]

    1 July 2015 Children’s Workers exemption appeals Proceedings under Part 3 of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 Interim grant Activity Fees Tasks Determine whether the grant of legal aid is justified $780 For • taking instructions, attending the client • preparing application for legal aid • contacting the client • identifying legal and factual issues and prospects of success • reporting to client Termination of instructions Activity Fees Tas