Search Results

1. IU Ltd v NO [2023] NZDT 409 (26 July 2023) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...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...

2. BS & NS v DL [2023] NZDT 50 (9 February 2023) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...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...

3. [2025] NZIACDT 08 – JY v Wen (7 February 2025) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...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...

4. [2020] NZIACDT 23 - Y(O)R v Tian (8 June 2020) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. 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...