Search Results

1. LT v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 690 (13 November 2024) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...be reasonable to allow cars time to both enter and exit the building in addition to the 180 minutes they can park. The appeal was declined. 4. LT paid the breach notice of $65 and seeks a refund of this amount, together with payment of the $45 filing fee to bring the claim to the Tribunal for resolution. 5. B Ltd did not attend the hearing on 13 November 2024 with three calls all going to answerphone on their automated enforcement line. However, they provided a written submission d...

2. DU v X Ltd [2024] NZDT 630 (20 September 2024) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...the mattress, but another corner of the mattress had pulled away. X Ltd collected the bed a few days later. Having offered to resell the bed on DU’s behalf, less a $250 fee. 3. DU says she paid $1,280.00 for the bed and $45.00 for the Tribunal filing fee and was refunded $750.00 by X Ltd, she is claiming the difference of $575.00. 4. X Ltd says the bed is second-hand, not new and was not damaged when delivered. It also says it displays conditions of sale in the showroom that says...

3. LCRO 103/2021 & LCRO 58/2022, LCRO 104/2021 and LCRO 105/2021 GS v ABC Ltd & HY, [Law Firm A] v ABC Ltd & HY and SW v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (24 November 2022) [pdf, 595 KB]

   ...dated 3 June 2021. 2 [2] That decision addressed complaints that had been made against Mr GS and [LAW FIRM A] ([LAW FIRM A]) (trading as [LAW FIRM B]), and an own motion inquiry concerning Mr SW. [3] Mr SW and [LAW FIRM A] ([LAW FIRM A]), filed applications for review of the 3 June 2021 decision at the same time (LCRO 105/2021 and LCRO 104/2021). [4] [Area] Standards Committee [X] also issued a decision on publication following the issue of its substantive decision. [5] Mr G...

4. AA v BK, BL & BM LCRO 264 / 2012 (25 July 2013) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...net proceeds of sale of an apartment in [Auckland] pending agreement or a Court Order, without instructions from Mr AA. 2. That [Law Firm A] had charged fees which were more than fair and reasonable. 3. That [Law Firm A] had failed to release files following a request by Mr AA. [8] The Standards Committee determined pursuant to s 138(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 to take no further action in respect of each of these complaints:- 1. With regard to the undertaking, i...

5. Hawkes Bay Standards Committee v Porteous [2014] NZLCDT 72 [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...disciplinary history of the practitioner. [6] In respect of the nature and gravity of the offending, Mr Gilbert submitted that when viewed in combination, the charges to which the practitioner had pleaded guilty were serious. The way he managed his files, particularly in respect of fees, breached regulatory requirements. His conduct was grossly unprofessional. [7] He further submitted that the involvement of elderly and vulnerable clients was a unifying theme in the offending. He...

6. Savage v Adlam – Lot 39A Sec 2A Parish of Matatā (2014) 95 Waiariki MB 176 (95 WAR 176) [pdf, 561 KB]

   .............................................................................................................. [14] GDL power station - KA24 well ..................................................................................... [23] TG2 - Should a developer’s fee or allowance be granted for Ms Adlam’s role in developing the TG2 power station?................................................................................ [30] Applicants’ submissions .................................

7. Employment relations authority updated 29 Sep 22 [pdf, 215 KB]

   1 | P a g e F r o m 1 M a r c h 2 0 1 5 Civil (Employment) Fixed Fees Schedule Employment (Employment Relations Authority) Proceedings under the Employment Relations Act 2000 Pre-Proceeding Matters Activity Fees Tasks Provider Advocate Early termination of instructions $290 $190 For • taking instructions, attending the client • preparing application for legal aid • reporting to client • reporting to and invoicing for Legal Aid. Pre-Proceeding act...

8. LCRO 110/2017 EB v APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF A PROSECUTORIAL DECISION [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...dividend payments he received between September 2010 and June 2011 in reduction of the August 2010 invoice. [14] In an email to Mr EB dated 5 July 2011, Ms AD indicated that she wished to terminate his retainer. She told Mr EB to “close [her] file” and that she would collect the file from his office. Ms AD also asked whether any fees remained outstanding. [15] Mr EB responded on the same day, and indicated that no fees were outstanding. He also set out matters that still need...

9. [2025] NZIACDT 45 - NA v Wharekura (2 September 2025) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...counsel 2 PRELIMINARY [1] The complainant engaged the adviser to seek a work visa. Even though no application was made, the adviser represented to the complainant that the application had been made. The adviser says he thought it had been filed and accepts he was negligent, but denies any dishonesty. [2] A complaint against the adviser made to the Immigration Advisers Authority (the Authority) has been referred by the Registrar of Immigration Advisers (the Registrar) to...

10. BE v TU Ltd [2018] NZDT 1502 (6 December 2018) [pdf, 86 KB]

    ...visited the [country] Embassy at [address 1]. He parked in space 75, which was one of a line of thirteen or so angle parks to the right-hand side of the driveway as he drove in. Soon afterwards, his car was clamped by TU Limited and he had to pay a fee of $150.00 for the car to be released. 2. BE now claims a refund of the $150.00 release fee, together with his $45.00 filing fee. 3. The relevant law is the tort of trespass to goods. TU does not dispute that it clamped the car and demand...