7482 items matching your search terms
...that this payment was to “compensate her for the legally 1 [2012] NZERA Auckland 162. unsustainable disciplinary process”. She was also held to be entitled to reimbursement of the filing fee which she had paid to the Authority of $71.56. [2] The Authority Member made it plain in the determination that while the employment relationship continued to exist between the parties, it was clear that would need to come to an en...
...Tribunal, in a minute of 16 September 2009, asked Mr Faleauto to advise if he opposed the application for amendment in respect of the P charges. No such objection was received by the 4 Tribunal, and in his response to all the proceedings, filed on 16 November 2009, Mr Faleauto makes no comment at all on the re-laying of the charges. [13] This Tribunal has to satisfy itself, after reviewing the transitional provisions of the LC Act, that no jurisdictional issue arises which may...
...(the Applicant) throughout November 2010 to February 2011, but did not complete the work contemplated by the retainer after UB failed to pay his fees. Thereafter the Practitioner took steps to recover the outstanding debt. [2] The Applicant filed a complaint that the Practitioner demanded payment of his fees without having done the work he was instructed to do. [3] The Standards Committee dealt with the complaint in terms of the Practitioner having terminated the retainer, an...
...AFTER 1 JULY 2016 21. This is likely to be our last report for a full year and the numbers are still showing a decrease in complaints at the date hereof, we will take this opportunity to thank providers and students for their work on many of the files, and the gratitude they have expressed to us for their resolution on occasions including advice from providers of their steps to upgrade their processes. SUMMARY OF THE DECISIONS OVER THE SEVEN YEARS THE PRESENT AUTHORITY MEMB...
...estimated cost of the legal work to attend to this. Unfortunately, there is no indication on the file note whether this figure included GST and disbursements. The Applicant says that it did. The Respondent, Mr YX, says that it represented the fee only and did not include disbursements. Mr YX, however does not say whether he considers it included GST or not, but it is assumed for the purposes of this review that his position is that it did not. [7] It is relatively clear however...
...Tribunal allows those fees, being $750.26. 16. Once the account was in dispute in early July 2022, the matter should have been filed in the Disputes Tribunal then, rather than waiting nearly a year and then adding further penalty interest after filing, which at 2% per month would be a windfall for the Applicant’s delay. 17. The Tribunal finds that the Respondent owes the Applicant $4,016.55. Referee: L Mueller Date: 26 July 2023 Page 3 of 3 In...
...2022, NS was walking along the beach at [Town], with her two dogs, a Spaniel and a Border Terrier. DL was walking along the beach with her Rottweiler. The Rottweiler attacked both dogs. 2. BS and NS claim $2,576.22 for surgery and follow-up vet fees, $100 for two return trips to the vet hospital from [Town], $65.30 for NS’s medical treatment and $90 for the filing fee. 3. As discussed at the hearing the Disputes Tribunal is unable to award the cost of the filing fee (section 43 D...
...charges to the complainants in excess of what they considered appropriate; Failure to advise of a scheduled date for a judicial conference; Failure to advise the Applicants of charge out rates; Instigating recovery action for the Practioner‟s fees. Applicable Standards [5] The rules which apply to the conduct of the Practitioner prior to 1 August 2008 are those which applied under the Law Practitioners Act 1982 (now repealed). By virtue of section 351 (1) of the Lawyers an...
...beginning. [15] On 5 April 2023, Ms Wen sent the services agreement between the agency and the complainant to the latter and asked him to sign by hand on his mobile phone. The service was described as an application for a recovery visa. The fee was NZD 4,582.53. He signed and returned it on 7 April. The dates of both 5 and 7 April were typed on the agreement. It was not signed by Ms Wen. [16] On the same day, 5 April 2023, an invoice for NZD 4,582.53 was generated, as was...
...could not find a record of any communication between herself and the 5 complainant. She had treated the complainant as a family member, which she recognised was not excellent practice. For most applications, she did not charge any service fee or even Immigration New Zealand’s fee. She acknowledged, however, that was no excuse to be unprofessional. Explanation from Ms Tian [26] On 29 November 2018, the investigator interviewed Ms Tian. She said she had been an immigratio...