Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

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.

[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)