Search Results

1. [2013] NZEmpC 102 Tan v Morningstar Institute of Education Ltd t/a Morningstar Preschool [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...the notional starting point for costs in the Authority should be $3,500 plus an uplift of $1,500 for her attempts to settle the grievance at a modest and reasonable rate plus the disbursements she incurred of $71.56, which may have included the filing fee in the Authority. I say ‘may’ because, although Mr Pollak certified in his memorandum that the plaintiff’s actual costs in the Authority were in excess of $4,500 he did not provide copies of relevant tax invoices. Mr Pollak...

2. Kereopa v Gray – Aramiro Trust (2016) 113 Waikato Maniapoto MB 245 (113 WMN 245) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...distances himself from any issues that arise with the farm manager. 113 Waikato Maniapoto MB 251 [20] Finally, in relation to the trustees themselves, it was submitted that trustees’ expenses and overheads are minimal and administration fees are well below what is normal for this type of trust. Currently there are four trustees, who attend the AGMs along with the accountant and the farm advisor. The trustees suggested that a possible way forward in terms of the issues...

3. [2021] NZIACDT 19 ZK v Registrar (20 August 2021) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...resident visa application, which was ultimately unsuccessful. It failed because of the way her employer structured her income, something the adviser always knew about. She had been led to believe by him that it would be successful and would not have filed it had there been no chance of success. [3] The essential issue to consider is whether the Registrar has overlooked one of the principal grounds of complaint, being whether the appellant was ever told of the risk to the applica...

4. Porou - Whareongaonga 5 Trust (2015) 49 Tairawhiti MB 46 (49 TRW 46) [pdf, 311 KB]

   ...the audited accounts were being prepared for 2008, 2009, 2010 by BDO accountants in Gisborne and were expected in two weeks. 3 I appointed Henare Porou and Andrew Richardson as trustees conditional upon the audited statements of the trust being filed within two months. 4 A check on this indicates that audited accounts for 2008 were not filed until May 2011. The audited accounts for 2009 were not filed until August 2011. The audited accounts for 2010 were not filed until 28 Septembe...

5. Adams v Aucamp [2016] NZIACDT 53 (14 September 2016) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...complainant when he lodged an application with Immigration New Zealand; he told her brother instead. [1.1.3] When his initial approach to gain residence for the complainant failed, he said he would prepare a work visa application without charging fees. However, after filing the application, he presented a backdated agreement requiring the complainant to pay fees. [1.1.4] After the professional relationship became strained, Mr Aucamp left a threatening message on the complainant’s tel...

6. LCRO 79/2021 SW v LL (30 June 2021) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...exercised); and (c) be accompanied by the prescribed fee (if any). [6] The original wording of s 198 provided that the 30-working day period began on the day that the Standards Committee determination was made. The effect of this was that the time for filing a review application had already started to run before the applicant was aware the determination had been issued and provided with a copy. [7] Section 198 was amended by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Act 2012.1 When...

7. N v Letalu [2015] NZIACDT 41 (16 April 2015) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...early June 2011. [5.2] On 8 June 2011, Mr Letalu issued an invoice to the complainants for $3,450 for services relating to making a request under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009. [5.3] The invoice indicated the total comprised a professional fee of $1,500 (inclusive of GST), $1,500 for research, preparation of a submission, and obtaining the file from Immigration New Zealand, and GST of $450. [5.4] Mr Letalu submitted the request in April 2012; for a “visa of any type”. The...

8. [2025] NZEmpC 47 NYF Ltd v Zhang [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...normally desirable for costs to outweigh the amount in issue in litigation, Mr Zhang had no other basis to pursue his claim than by engaging in litigation.13 Ultimately, it awarded Mr Zhang a sum of $5,000 in costs along with the Authority’s filing fee of $71.55.14 2 High Court Rules 2016, r 4.50. 3 Zhang v Nie [2024] NZERA 638 (Member Craig). 4 At [78]. 5 At [72] and [100]. 6 At [103]. 7 At [109]. 8 Zhang v Nie, above n 1. 9 At [8] and [22]. 10 At [20]....

9. LCRO 121/2017 PT v BD (25 July 2018) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...issue has been summarised by Mr PT as follows: 12 days before the commencement of High Court proceedings in which MOH Ltd was involved (the EFI Ltd litigation), Mr BD said that he was no longer going to represent the company because outstanding fees had not been paid. Mr PT disputed that MOH Ltd owed fees 1 At the review hearings, MOH Ltd was represented by Mr PT, Mr CT and Ms DL. References in this decision to Mr PT are to Mr PT, as h...

10. Tamang v Varquez [2015] NZIACDT 78 (31 July 2015) [pdf, 186 KB]

    ...a written agreement and he did not attend to the various disclosure requirements. In doing so he breached clauses 1.5(a), (b) and (d) of the Licensed Immigration Advisers Code of Conduct 2010 (the 2010 Code). [2.2] He also failed to document the fees and disbursements as required by clause 8(d) of the 2010 Code. [2.3] In addition, he negligently failed to evaluate the points his client could claim when lodging an expression of interest, in breach of section 44(2) of the Act. [3] The T...