Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 40 Wang v Hamilton Multicultural Services Trust [pdf, 13 KB]

   WANG V HAMILTON MULTICULTURAL SERVICES TRUST AK 16 April 2010 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2010] NZEMPC 40 ARC 1/10 ARC 9/10 ARC 1/10 IN THE MATTER OF a de novo challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by the plaintiff that the defendant may defend the claim in ARC 1/10 only with the leave of the Court ARC 9/10 IN THE MATTER OF an application to have proceedings removed BETWEEN NING (...

2. [2023] NZEnvC 236 Nelson-Marlborough Fish and Game Council v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 484 KB]

   ...… … … Macroinvertebrate Community Index (MCI) – Stoney Bottom Streams - Must be >80 greater than or equal to the MCI score set for the receiving waters in the following list when river flow is < median flow. Wakamarina River ≥110 Branch River ≥110 Opouri River ≥110 Upper Wairau River ≥110 Black Birch Stream ≥110 Upper Pelorus River ≥110 Linkwater Stream ≥110 Mid Awatere River ≥110 Ohinemahuta River ≥110 Kenepuru Steam ≥110 Ronga R...

3. BI v YR Inc [2013] NZDT 439 (25 October 2013) [pdf, 13 KB]

   ...not stand alone so it follows that because the original claim was not in jurisdiction, this claim cannot be in jurisdiction either and must be struck out. http://www.brookersonline.co.nz/databases/modus/lawpart/statutes/link?id=ACT-NZL-PUB-Y.1988-110%7eBDY%7ePT.2%7eS.10%7eSS.1A&si=15� http://www.brookersonline.co.nz/databases/modus/lawpart/statutes/link?id=ACT-NZL-PUB-Y.1988-110%7eBDY%7ePT.2%7eS.10%7eSS.2&si=15� http://www.brookersonline.co.nz/databases/modus/lawpart/statutes/li...

4. CAC 10063 v Raj - Penalty Decision [2012] NZREADT 62 [pdf, 20 KB]

   ...had had ample opportunity to make these submissions at the substantive hearing and chose not to do so and submitted that could not now be considered by the Tribunal. The Complaints Assessment Committee urged the Tribunal to impose a fine under s 110(f) and censure Mr Raj. The Complaints Assessment Committee submitted that an order under s 110(2)(e) that Mr Raj cannot be employed again as an agent would be appropriate. [5] The Tribunal has considered carefully the facts of this case a...

5. 09-Photos-Simulations.pdf [pdf, 21 MB]

   ...October 2022 - Photo Simulations Volume III Original Photo Lisa Rimmer | 50mm | DSLR Nikon D800 | 12:09pm 17 March 2022 | 1794737 E, 5503916 N (NZTM) Reading distance for correct scale: 400mm | Viewpoint Elevation: 40m Field of View Approximately 110˚ horizontal (across 2 x A3 pages) 7Ōtaki to North Levin | October 2022 - Photo Simulations Volume III Viewpoint 1 - Proposed - No Planting Heatherlea East Road (opposite #21) looking south-east towards highway. 8 Ōtaki to North Levin...

6. CAC 20006 v Stevenson [2013] NZREADT 74 [pdf, 28 KB]

   ...complained of by Mr Stevenson took place in 2011. Accordingly Mr Stevenson’s conduct falls to be considered under the penalty provisions of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. The Tribunal has available to it those penalties which are set out in sections 110 and 93. [4] The penalties which are relevant to the charges on which Mr Stevenson have been found guilty are: [a] An order cancelling Mr Stevenson’s licence (s 110(2)(b)); [b] An order suspending Mr Stevenson’s licence (s 1...

7. [2023] NZEnvC 123 MFC Development Limited Partnership [pdf, 341 KB]

   ...WHANGANUI-A-TARA IN THE N1ATTER BY Decision [2023] NZEnvC 123 of an application under s 87G of the Resource Management Act 1991 for a direct referral of an application for resource consent for the construction of a building and associated earthworks at 110 Jervois Quay, Wellington Central MFC DEVELOPMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (ENV-2023-\v'LG-002) Applicant Court: Environment Judge LJ Semple sitting alone under s 279(1) of the Act Hearing: In chambers at Wellington...

8. ED v MA [2023] NZDT 556 (18 April 2023) [pdf, 177 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 556 APPLICANT ED RESPONDENT MA The Tribunal orders: MA is to pay ED $110.00 on or before 9 May 2023. Reasons 1. ED and his partner bought a kitten from MA through the [online] website, paying a total of $1,240.00. After possessing the kitten for a couple of days, ED discovered a minor rash on the kitten’s muzzle, which over th...

9. AR v ZE LCRO 83/2012 (2 April 2014) [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...deducted money from the proceeds of the sale of the ARs’ property, despite a clear direction from them that she was not to deduct fees from their settlement funds. Review Issue [16] The issue on review is whether Ms ZE or the firm breached s 110(1)(b) or (2)(b) of the Act by failing to hold, or ensure that the money was held, exclusively for the ARs, to be paid to the ARs or as the ARs directed. 4 Jurisdiction [17] The jurisdiction of a Legal Complaints Review Office...

10. [2023] NZREADT 29 CAC 1901 v KC (11 October 2023) [pdf, 202 KB]

    ...her appeal against the penalty decision. The purchasers’ appeal against the penalty decision was recently dismissed.3 COSTS SOUGHT [12] The defendant has sought costs against the Committee for the failed misconduct charges, pursuant to s 110A of the Act. Submissions of the defendant [13] In his submissions (22 August 2023), Mr Waymouth acknowledges the Tribunal’s precedents establishing that costs do not automatically follow the event. It is submitted, however, that in...