Search Results

1. XA v AY LCRO 22 / 2012 (6 June 2013) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...substantial and competent work was carried out in making a formal application for compensation in respect of the [the product] from MAF. That application was ultimately successful. The fact that the Ombudsman also took an interest in the matter at the request of Mr XA does not change this. I note that the fact that the Ombudsman was considering the matter was expressly referred to in the covering letter which accompanied the application for compensation written by Ms AY of 16 October...

2. XI v North Island Standards Committee LCRO 77 / 2013 (5 July 2013) [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...[33] Neither can it be a concern that the Standards Committee took into account matters which were before another Standards Committee (in particular the BE complaint on the same facts). The BE complaint was clearly relevant and quite properly formed part of the investigation of the Standards Committee. 9 [34] Accordingly even if the decision had been to accept jurisdiction, it is unlikely that the Committee’s resolution would have been set aside. In addition, this Office...

3. Landon v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 12 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...be distinguished from the damage to the substrate or the extent of any liability. The claim that further damage might have been revealed at hearing through the evidence of other parties’ experts Page | 6 had no merit and ignored the request by IAG for the claims to be particularised. c) IAG conveyed Calderbank offers to Mr Matthews and Mr Middleton which were reasonable and pragmatic but were declined. d) Mr Matthews and Mr Middleton focused their claim on defence...

4. LCRO 007/2017 NT YR v HV [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...when progress was slow, provided incomplete information and advice, did not reply to correspondence and cancelled the April meeting with “little notice and no concrete reason”. They say Mr HV failed to comply with their direct and reasonable requests and instructions on multiple occasions, and he charged too much. [7] The complainants say Mr HV provided a verbal estimate of $4,000 at the beginning of the retainer, and amended that to $6,000 then provided a draft invoice for fees...

5. Hikaka v Ngawhare - Komene 4A2 (2016) 356 Aotea MB 76 (356 AOT 76) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...whatever the reasons, could then be seen to be ‘double dipping’ by seeking a benefit from the shares of Bernadette as well as from their own. That would be quite an iniquitous outcome in the present circumstances. It might even amount to a form of unjust enrichment. The only other viable alternative would be for the trust to be terminated, partly or wholly, and for the Bernadette Hikaka whānau trust to be re- established. [23] Moreover, it is evident that the facts here are u...

6. Cutaran-Tanggaan v Earnshaw [2012] NZIACDT 61 (28 September 2012) [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...done so. [13] Ms Cutaran-Tanggaan produced emails evidencing promises by Ms Earnshaw to refund fees, which included the following emails from Ms Earnshaw to Ms Cutaran-Tanggaan: [13.1] 14 July 2009 — Ms Earnshaw said she had “put forward your request for a refund less of course the charges. At the moment, refunds are still suspended ...”. 3 [13.2] 22 August 2009 — Ms Earnshaw said “... you will be the first to be refunded”. [13.3] 29 August 2009 — Ms Earnsh...

7. UI v OQ LCRO 225/2011 (8 March 2013) [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...agreement to seek an opinion from a resource management specialist (the RM Consultant). The RM Consultant was provided with the Applicant’s files for this purpose, and he provided a one and a half page Report to the Practitioner based on that information. [6] The entirety of the Report was not forwarded to the Applicant, but the Practitioner referred to it when expressing his opinion to the Applicant that there appeared to be no procedural irregularities in the Council’s rezo...

8. IN v SK LCRO 53 / 2011 (24 February 2012) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...Mr IN (the Practitioner), the main one alleging that there had been overcharging. The Standards Committee found the Practitioner guilty of unsatisfactory conduct in relation to the complaint of overcharging, and in failing to keep his client informed. The Committee found that the Practitioner had breached Rules 3 and 9 of the Lawyers: Rules of Conduct and Client Care. [2] The Committee reduced the Practitioner’s bill below the amount recommended by a Costs Assessor pursuant to...

9. OP v PQ LCRO 32 / 2012 (16 August 2012) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...agreement’, but that he had not received a response from the firm, and asked that his letter be considered as a cross claim. On 24 June 2011 the Registrar responded (cc’d to the firm) to say that the letter did not comply with the High Court Rules or forms, and the suggestion was made that the Applicant contact the (local) 5 Community Law office. (There is no evidence on the file to show that he sought this assistance.) [26] On 29 June the Practitioner then sent...

10. ST v CBU LCRO 125 / 2011 (10 December 2012) [pdf, 97 KB]

    ...directors of the company and it is not necessary that they should express their complaints as being lodged in that capacity for the complaint to be accepted. [27] It would also be something of an anomaly if it were necessary for there to be a formal company resolution to pursue a complaint, as in circumstances where there was disagreement between directors, a complaint could not be pursued. This is a factor which a Standards Committee would no doubt take into account, but I do not th...