Search Results

1. [2012] NZEmpC 58 Evolution E-Business Ltd v Smith [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...to Russell McVeagh and that Mr Skelton had been instructed as counsel in the matter. Mr Skelton’s helpful memorandum referred to the recognised legal principles in relation to awards of costs and then made a number of relevant observations in response to the defendant’s claim in the present case. In summary, the submissions counsel made were: 1. There was no evidence before the Court that Mr Smith had incurred the legal costs he was now seeking to recover because each of the...

2. [2009] NZEmpC CC 7/09 Heritage Expeditions Ltd v Fraser [pdf, 37 KB]

   ...employed by Heritage Expeditions Limited rather than Heritage Travel Group Limited. On behalf of Mr Fraser, his solicitors asked the Authority to substitute Heritage Expeditions Limited as the respondent in the proceedings. [10] In response to that request, the Authority reopened its investigation and scheduled a further investigation meeting on 4 June 2009. Notice of that meeting and a minute issued by the Authority was sent to Heritage Travel Group Limited at its addr...

3. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v Telecom NZ 3553 [2013] NZCOP 6 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...entered into between the Tribunal and the Respondents and in a letter dated 31 January 2013 from the Tribunal to the Respondents they were invited to confirm if they wished to be heard or if they would like matters to be dealt with on the papers. No response was received from that letter and further letters were sent by the Tribunal to the Respondents dated 25 February and 5 March 2013 informing them that the Tribunal would hear the matter on the papers. [9] To be clear, the papers o...

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

   ...Middleton called any evidence on this issue and the onus was on them to do so. [16] I conclude that it should have been apparent to Mr Matthews and Mr Middleton, particularly as they were legally represented, that by the time they filed their responses to the claim that their allegations against IAG lacked substantial merit. For these reasons, and because the defence costs sought far exceeded IAG’s potential liability, the decision by Mr Matthews and Mr Middleton to procee...

5. BORA Waste Minimisation (Solids) Bill [pdf, 410 KB]

   ...disposal of materials for which there are systems for diverting them from waste disposal facilities; • Places a levy on the disposal of residual waste to deter wasteful behaviour and fund the Waste Management Authority; • Require producers to take responsibility for certain products through the lifetime of those products; • Establishes the Waste Minimisation Authority which would be responsible for approving producer responsibility programmes; and • Deems Local Authorities t...

6. LCRO 131/2017 GR v [Area] Standards Committee [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal, publication and consequential orders. [19] Mr GR confirmed it was a genuine mistake on his part in circumstances where he was not aware of the undertaking and he immediately accepted responsibility for honouring the undertaking. [20] The Committee considered all of the materials available, and concluded that Mr GR had failed to honour the undertaking, in breach of r 10.3 of the Rules, and his subsequent actions did not c...

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

   ...is reasonable to conclude that this created an expectation on the part of the Applicant that this was acceptable to the firm. [17] At some point the Applicant decided he had paid enough and declined to make any further payments. The firm’s response was to inform the Applicant that it required payment of the amount in full in order to avoid legal process. Subsequently the Practitioner took the matter to the Disputes Tribunal which upheld the Practitioner’s fees. The Applicant...

8. Lim v Gu-Chang [2014] NZIACDT 77 (29 August 2014) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...his circumstances, and it was confidential information. Breach of the Code in relation to setting fees that are fair and reasonable in the circumstances (clause 8(a)) [11] The fee of $12,800 was potentially excessive for the work performed. The Responses [12] The complainant did not respond to the statement of complaint, and was not required do so unless he wished to take issue with it. [13] Ms Gu-Chang filed a statement of reply. She took issue with some factual material that is n...

9. VM v ND & HB LCRO 249/2012 (30 November 2015) [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...client care information to Mr VM. In the Committee’s view it would be going too far to criticise Ms HB for not having ensured that Mr ND did so, or that he did so in appropriate terms. She was entitled to assume that Mr ND would attend to those responsibilities and obligations appropriately. 101. Accordingly the Committee makes a determination to take no further action in respect of the complaint against Ms HB, pursuant to s 152(2)(c) of the Act.

10. Chaudhary v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 414) NZREADT 12 [pdf, 187 KB]

    ...Gooch advised Mr Rajan of his conversation with Mr Chaudhary on 31 January 2017. [10] The Authority formally advised Mr Chaudhary of the complaint by email on 8 February 2017. The Authority set out a number of questions for Mr Chaudhary’s response. These included questions as to whether he had agreed to reduce the commission, and as to his responses to matters raised by Mr Gooch in his conversation on 31 January. [11] Mr Chaudhary responded the same day stating that he did n...