Search Results

1. LCRO 47/2016 FD v QB (16 October 2018) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...attendance at the deceased’s funeral [30] Mr FD notes that Mr QB recorded his first attendance on [Date] as attending his mother’s funeral. In his letter to the firm’s COO, Mr FD said that he had asked the executors to challenge the firm’s fees and they had refused but he wanted to pursue the issue, with a focus on his concern that the firm had charged for attending the funeral. He then says he finds it disturbing: that [the firm] charged to attend funerals prior to a Lett...

2. VJ & VL v AE LCRO 88 / 2012 (14 May 2013) [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...against AE (the Practitioner). The Standards Committee resolved to take no further action on the complaint and the Applicants seek a review of that decision. [2] The complaint concerned the Practitioner’s refusal to refund any part of the fee that had been paid by the Applicants when the Practitioner represented them in relation to certain criminal charges. [3] The Applicants had paid the Practitioner the agreed sum of $10,000. Matters did not eventuate as originally plan...

3. Nelson Standards Committee v Downing and Reith [2022] NZLCDT 7 (17 February 2022) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...7(1)(a)(ii). 4 Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008. 3 3. Did Mr Downing fail to properly advise the client about her eligibility for legal aid, the litigation risk, and proportionality of recovery against fees incurred? If so, did this failure reach the standards of misconduct under s 7(1)(a)(i) or (ii) (as set out above)? Background [6] Mr Downing acted for the complainant (Ms L) from 2 June 2016 until the retainer was termin...

4. LCRO 181/2019 SL v GB (29 January 2021) [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...delivered its decision on 13 November 2015 in which it sustained the caveat. [9] As detailed in my later analysis, between 15 January 2016 and 6 April 2016 Mr GB and Ms SL exchanged emails concerning (a) Mr GB's requests for payment of his fees, (b) his attempts to resolve the dispute by negotiation, (c) Ms SL’s queries about his fees for the caveat hearing, the ongoing legal costs of the litigation, and how best to proceed; and (d) Ms SL’s 8 October 2015 instructions to su...

5. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v Telecom NZ 4296 [2013] NZCOP 10 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...be infringed; a statement of which of the alleged infringements identified in the enforcement notice RIANZ seeks to enforce; 2 a statement of the amount ($1,043.42) that RIANZ is seeking from the account holder; and the prescribed fee. [7] Following receipt of that information the Tribunal ordered Telecom New Zealand, the relevant internet protocol address provider (IPAP) to produce to the Tribunal the name and contact details of the account holder and copies of the det...

6. LG v J Ltd [2024] NZDT 818 (14 October 2024) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...happen again. 8. LG seeks the following resolution: CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 a) A non-electrical sofa of her choice to the same value as the faulty sofa, or b) Full refund of the price of the sofa, and c) Reimbursement of the filing fee and compensation for not having a sofa for 18 weeks. 9. The issues to determine are: a) Is the sofa not of acceptable quality and/or not reasonably fit for purpose? b) If so, did LG give J Ltd an opportunity to remedy this failur...

7. Unnikrishnan v Goldsmith [2016] NZIACDT 29 (2 June 2016) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...clear notice of the criminal sanctions that apply. Accordingly, Ms Goldsmith giving wrong advice is consistent with other aspects of her dealings with the complainant. [55] Given the proximity in time between Ms Goldsmith’s text message and her filing the application without disclosing the conviction, I am satisfied that at the time she filed the application she knew of the conviction and filed the application knowing it failed to disclose the conviction. Ms Goldsmith’s lack of memory...

8. TL & UL v Q & QT Limited [2024] NZDT 145 (12 April 2024) [pdf, 167 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...

9. IS & JS v KC [2021] NZDT 1308 (9 April 2021) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...Appeal may 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 days of the decision having been made. There is a $200 filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside of 20 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 supporting...

10. NC v UD Ltd [2024] NZDT 829 (2 October 2024) [pdf, 189 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...