Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / fees not fair and reasonable / failure to repay client funds held in trust account / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, section 110 / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 9 / rule 9.6 / Heslop v Cousins [2007] 3 NZLR 679 (HC) / Abbot v Macclesfield LCRO 40/2009 (29 May 2009) / open and transparent billing / reasonable time to render final account / HELD / final accounts not rendered within a reasonable time / fees not fair and reasonable / Committee’s decision modified / section 211(1)(a)

[2018] NZEmpC 79 Hines v Eastland Port Ltd (Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 16 July 2018) UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL FOR SERIOUS MISCONDUCT – Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Maritime Rules – ship without a “pilot” -  employee put under supervision by other employee – whether acting on an honest but mistaken belief is misconduct – employee was employed for expertise and should have understood obligations – open to find serious misconduct –investigation sufficient – defects in the process were inconsequential – no unfairness in the investigation –no unjustified dismissal - ordering supervision by other employee a minor breach – no unjustified disadvantages – whether employer should indemnify employee’s costs – no remedies awarded.

Date of Decision: 08 July 2010. Decision on quantum of costs.

Complaint / Committee declined to take further action on complaints / lawyer ceased acting for clients / complaint lawyer mislead court and increased complainants costs / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 12 / third party duties / respect and courtesy / discovery obligations / termination of retainer / HELD / limited duties owed to complainants / no evidence lawyer breached duties owed to third party / Committee’s decision confirmed / section 211(1)(a)

Date of Decision: 19 June 2018. Human Rights Act 1993.

[2018] NZEmpC 66 Ben Singh Holdings Ltd t/a Fresh VibeCafé v Singh (Interlocutory Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 8 June 2018) APPLICATIONS FOR STAY OF EXECUTION, SECURITY FOR COSTS – Stay principles considered - stay of execution declined – security for costs of $7,500 ordered – stay of these proceedings -until payment made into Court, or further order.

Complaint / Committee found unsatisfactory conduct / fees not fair and reasonable / failure to keep client informed / Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 3 / rule 3.2 / rule 3.4 / rule 3.5 / rule 7 / rule 7.1 / rule 7.2 / rule 9 / rule 9.1 / competence / terms of engagement / enduring power of attorney / cash-out clause / HELD / fees fair and reasonable / client kept informed / Committee’s decision reversed / section 211(1)(a)

[2018] NZEmpC 58 Ioan v Scott Technology NZ Ltd t/a Rocklabs (Cost Judgment of Judge J C Holden, 30 May 2018) COSTS – APPLICATION FOR STAY – costs of $22,000 awarded in favour of defendant – insufficient evidence that without stay the plaintiff will be unable to pursue appeal – stay application declined.

[2018] NZEmpC 56 Rodionov v Ozone Technologies Ltd (Judgment of Judge B A Corkill, 29 May 2018) COSTS – both parties unsuccessful at Authority – time involved in claim and counter-claim considered - costs assessed separately- plaintiff to contribute $3,500 to defendant.

[2018] NZEmpC 55 TUV v WXY (Consent Interlocutory Judgment of Chief Judge Christina Inglis, 25 May 2018) CONSENT – APPLICATION FOR STAY – Authority determination stayed by consent – security for costs in the Authority paid into Court.

[2018] NZEmpC 52 Smith v Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries (Costs Judgment of Judge K G Smith, 22 May 2018) COSTS - Guideline Scale - ability to pay – costs awarded of $21,185 plus disbursements.

Contract / Respondent company owned a number of planes and offered rides to the public / Applicant was responsible for providing required Quality Assurance / Applicant unpaid for some of his Quality Assurance work / Applicant claimed for Quality Assurance fees, materials purchased and legal fees /  Whether there was a contract between the Applicant and Respondent / If so, whether the contract had been breached and what damages were payable / Whether the Applicant purchased goods to the benefit of the Respondent / If so, whether the Respondent was required to pay for those goods / Whether the Applicant can recover his legal costs / Held: Binding contract between the Applicant and Respondent / Respondent breached contract / Applicant provided invoice for $2,500.00 which was unpaid / Applicant entitled to that amount from the Respondent / Applicant provided invoice for goods purchased for the Respondent / Applicant expended $6,184.24 of his own money to assist the Respondent / Would be un…