Search Results

1. LCRO 184/2015 WD v YR (6 July 2017) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...received an email from Mr WD saying “Hi [YR] I got this from the court Kind Regard [WD]”. 2 [4] Mr WD was referring to an email the Court had sent directly to him in the following terms:1 Your email has been sent to me. I note the claim was filed by a solicitor, if you are now acting for yourself you need to file a notice of change of representation. At this stage the court has no idea at what stage the claim is at as the parties serve documents among themselves. A claim c...

2. LCRO 82/2024 OB v SA (11 November 2025) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...estate, and $2,983 for Mr EB’s estate. Mr OB’s complaints [10] Mr OB describes his complaint as a ‘fee complaint’.3 [11] He says that [Law Firm A] was engaged only to obtain probate of his mother’s will. [12] He says that the fees charged by [Law Firm A] amount to ‘gross overcharging’. [13] The outcome sought by Mr OB was ‘the charging of a reasonable fee’. He refers to a MoneyHub article which indicates that the cost to obtain probate should be in the...

3. Samisoni v Tangilanu [2015] NZIACDT 34 ( 23 March 2015) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...Issued: 23 March 2015 2 DECISION Introduction [1] The Registrar of the Immigration Advisers Authority referred this complaint to the Tribunal. [2] The complaint is that Ms Tangilanu accepted instructions and received an initial fee to assist the complainant with a request for a visa, she then: [2.1] Made some initial inquiries. [2.2] Ms Tangilanu’s licence as a licensed immigration adviser expired, shortly after making the initial inquiries. However, she had...

4. UN & QN v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 443 (9 September 2023) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...left, stayed at a motel and then came back the following morning expecting a waterfront site to be available but there wasn’t. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 7. UN and QN left again and went and spent their holiday elsewhere. UN and QN filed this claim on 7 March 2023 for $3,284.00 for their petrol expense of $129.00, alternate accommodation expense of $155.00 and $3,000.00 for “expectation damages, mental distress, disappointment and loss of amenity value”. 8. Holid...

5. 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...

6. [2025] NZSSAA 02 (22 January 2025) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...filed separate judicial review proceedings against several New Zealand Universities and the [redacted]. 2. Following determinations by the High Court, XXXX sought to appeal the determinations to the Court of Appeal. This required payment of filing fees for some appeals and security for costs for all appeals. XXXX sought to have these costs waived or reduced but she was unsuccessful. In December 2021 XXXX applied to the Ministry of Social Development (the Ministry) for assis...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. BI v L Ltd [2025] NZDT 218 (28 May 2025) [pdf, 237 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 $260 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 sup...

10. 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...