Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Negligence / incapacity / failure to have written agreement & notify fees / filing futile applications / adviser subject to many complaints which Tribunal upheld in interim decision / adviser lacked capacity to practice & defend complaint due to medical condition / adviser’s licence cancelled / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 442 / Code of Conduct 2010, cl1.5, cl8b / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl9, cl18a, cl19f, cl29b / interim decision upholding complaint made final.

Failure to exercise due diligence and care / failure to provide written agreement / Application for residence / EOI declined due to showing insufficient points / adviser failed to inform client / adviser lacked capacity to practice due to medical condition / adviser subject to a number of complaints & licence cancelled / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / adviser no longer capable of defending or giving instructions concerning complaint / appropriate to uphold the complaint to extent necessary to order a refund of fees / incapacity found in terms of s 442c of the Act / complaint upheld / adviser ordered to refund $7,750 in fees & disbursements.  

24.01.19 | Judge Wainwright, Judge Coxhead, Judge Doogan | Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, Section 79 | Costs

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / leaky building litigation / dispute about appropriate forum for litigation / dispute about clause in litigation agreement / complaint lawyer did not act in a timely manner / did not give clear advice / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / rule 9 / whether lawyer should have salvaged litigation agreement / HELD / lawyer acted competently / litigation strategy was appropriate considering the law at the time / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / administration of will / complaint applicant failed to uplift documents when requested by respondent’s lawyer / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008, regulation 29 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 4 / rule 4.1 / 4.4 / rule 4.4.1 / whether applicant instructed to act / whether there are special circumstances to consider fees less than $2,000 / HELD / assertion of lien over will unsatisfactory conduct / applicant had been instructed to act / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / child support proceedings / complaint lawyer failed to follow instructions / failed to give competent advice / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 161 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / rule 9 / rule 9.1 / rule 13.3 / Henderson Reeves Connell Rishworth Lawyers Ltd v Busch [2013] NZHC 3089 / Norris Ward McKinnon v Kaye  [2016] NZHC 3089 / Simpson Grierson v Gilmour (2009) 16 PRNZ 865 (HC) / whether Disputes Tribunal claim to recover fees prevents Office considering a fee complaint / duties in litigation / HELD / Committee should have process for dealing with fee complaints lodged in other jurisdictions / lawyer acted reasonably and protected client’s interests / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / applicant facing IRD charges / lawyers with necessary experience left the firm / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9 / rule 9.1 / Chean v Kensington Swan HC Auckland CIV-2006-404-1047, 7 June 2006 / whether respondents were responsible for setting fee / whether Committee identified the correct parties for the complaint / HELD / respondents not responsible for setting fees / Committee failed to identify correct parties / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaint / sale of relationship property dispute / lawyer had previously acted for applicant and applicant’s partner / complaint lawyer had a conflict of interest / allegation lawyer had colluded to obtain a lower price for relationship property / P v H LCRO 2/2009 (20 March 2009) / lawyer acting against former clients / HELD / lawyer had applicant’s consent to act / no evidence to support allegations / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / property purchase / complaint lawyer failed to advise about electricity easements / did not supply terms of engagement / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committee) Regulations 2008, regulation 29 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 1.2 / rule 3 / rule 7 / rule 7.1 / rule 9 / rule 9.1 / whether lawyer billed applicant twice for same work / whether invoices should be treated separately / HELD / lawyer failed to advise clients about easements / invoices should be considered together / fees not fair and reasonable / breach of rule 3 / breach of rule 7.1 / unsatisfactory conduct / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / lawyer had been suspended from practice / complaint that lawyer provided poor service / increased fees / HELD / complaints vague / no evidence to support allegations / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / property purchase / sale of business / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Complaints Service and Standards Committees) Regulations 2008, regulation 29 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9.1 / whether fees exceeded quote / HELD / each fee relates to a separate matter / fees do not exceed $2,000 / Office does not have jurisdiction to consider complaints about fees below $2,000 / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)

[2018] NZEmpC 134 Richora Group Ltd v Cheng (Costs Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 13 November 2018) COSTS - $13,468 in favour of defendant.

[2018] NZEmpC 133 Infinity Automotive Ltd v Lorigan (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 12 November 2018) COMPLIANCE ORDER- compliance sought on costs order – evidence of ongoing non-compliance – compliance order made – consequences of further non-compliance addressed – costs of application for compliance order of $500.