Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

[2018] NZEmpC 131 RPW v H (Oral Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 6 November 2018) BREACH OF COMPLIANCE ORDER – FINE - $2,000 fine and $3,500 costs awarded against defendant – take-down order not made in the absence of argument.

[2018] NZEmpC 127 GSTech Ltd v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Costs Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 31 October 2018) COSTS – whether Labour Inspector action regarding minimum standards warrants special approach to costs – not appropriate in this instance – costs to follow the event – costs of $8,000 in Authority, $22,300 on the challenge - $1,000 costs on costs, plus disbursements.  

Contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 / Applicant lent Respondent $500 / Payment plan was put in place to repay debt but payment stopped / Applicant claims $1,477.18 from Respondent for outstanding amount plus fees and interest / Issue whether contract was consumer credit contract under CCCFA / Held: contract is a consumer credit contract  /  This was stated on the front page of the contract / Issue whether Applicant entitled to enforce contract / Held: contract cannot be enforced per s 99 of the CCCFA / Applicant did not comply with mandatory initial disclosure requirement  / Claim dismissed  

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / will dispute / applicant estate beneficiary / complaint lawyer provided incorrect advice / incorrectly recorded time spent on file / fee complaint / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9 / rule 9.1 / third party duties / HELD / limited duties owed to third parties / applicant not a client of the lawyer / not entitled to know advice given to executors / no evidence to support allegations / fees fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

[2018] NZEmpC 117 GEA Process Engineering Ltd v Schicker (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 2 October 2018) GOOD FAITH REPORT – legal principles applying – two determinations challenged and in conflict - inconclusive as to whether passive obstruction was failure of good faith – defendant’s costs to this point to be met by plaintiff – plaintiff to decide how to resolve conflicting challenges.

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / dispute over care of children / complaint lawyer gave bad advice / excessive fees / HELD / large amount of new information supplied on review / Committee directed to reconsider complaint / section 211(1)(a)

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / Family Court proceedings / complaint lawyer increased costs to applicants / acted incompetently / misled the Court / acted unprofessionally / sent an intimidating email to the applicants / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.2 / rule 6 / rule 10.2 / rule 13 / whether complaints put to lawyer / duty to third parties / respect and courtesy  / judicial criticism of lawyer / HELD / Committee put complaints to lawyer / lawyer failed follow timetabling instructions / lawyer made an unfounded attack on applicants / lawyer should not have directly contacted applicants / conduct unsatisfactory / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

[2018] NZEmpC 111 Hines v Eastland Port Ltd (Costs Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 25 September 2018) COSTS – plaintiff to pay $22,000 costs in Authority – some amounts of court costs disputed – legal research not disbursements – Interest on Money Claims Act does not apply - $32,000.50 for Court costs awarded against plaintiffs, plus disbursements and expert’s fees.

[2018] NZEmpC 114 Allen Chambers Ltd v Pelabon (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 24 September 2018) DIRECTIONS – COMPLIANCE – GOOD FAITH – evidence that plaintiff did not act in good faith – hearing to be limited to particular issues – hearing to proceed under strict conditions. Costs of $750 to defendant on good faith process.  

Review / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / lawyers were trustees of a family trust / fees not fair and reasonable / invoices not rendered in a reasonable time / lawyer had not issued a letter of engagement / failed to advise executors of their power to appoint trustees / did not allow uplifting of files / used legal processes for improper purposes / breach of Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.3 / rule 3 / rule 3.2 / rule 5 / rule 5.1 / rule 5.2 / rule 5.4 / rule 6 / rule 9 / rule 9.6 / instructing solicitor ordered to pay barrister / HELD / documents held for legitimate purpose / no obligation to forward documents / reduction of fees modified / breaches of rules 9 and 9.6  confirmed / other rule breaches reversed / Committee’s decision otherwise confirmed / section 211(1)(a). See also decision addendum/correction dated 12 November 2018.

21.02.2018 | Judge Milroy (Presiding), Judge Coxhead, Judge Armstrong| Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, Section 58 | Costs

[2018] NZEmpC 107 TKR Properties Ltd t/a Top Pub & Route 26 Bar and Grill v MacDonald (Costs Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 17 September 2018) COSTS ON DISCONTINUANCE – settlement agreement excluded Court  costs– costs of $6,090.40, incl GST, ordered.