Search Results

1. Chalecki v ACC [2012] NZACA 16 [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...of the appellant’s claims presented by both parties. The Employee Contribution [28] Section 2 defines a “decision” as including any “determination, requirement, assessment, order, or direction made or given”; a review lies under s 101(1)(c) where the decision affects any granting, or payment of compensation under the 1982 Act. [29] Mr Forster made submissions on two levels. First, he provided calculations by way of submissions to demonstrate the way the appellant’s...

2. Wood v ACC [2013] NZACA 4 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...no jurisdiction for it to make such a determination on appeal under the 1992 Act, and the statutory regime under that Act disadvantaged Mr Wood. Once it was accepted that the 1987 decision must be dealt with under the 1982 Act, then by virtue of s 101 of the 1982 Act, which provides that where a remedy by way of review or appeal is provided under Part IX of the Act, no other remedy shall be available, the District Court was not a court of competent jurisdiction and any argument that it c...

3. IAA v van Zyl [2012] NZIACDT 37 (31 July 2012) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...makes any submissions) within 15 working days of the issue of this decision. Conclusion [100] The parties are notified this decision will be published after five working days unless any party applies for orders not to publish any aspect. [101] Mr K, through the Authority, has requested privacy. Mr K did not initiate the complaint, and there is no evident public interest in publishing his identity, the Tribunal directs that Mr K’s name will not be published. [102] The direct...

4. Ashraf v Standing [2012] NZIACDT 55 (30 August 2012) [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...is: [100.1] Censured. [100.2] Ordered to pay a penalty of $6,000. 11 [100.3] Directed to refund fees of $29,600 (he has joint and several liability with Ms Gu- Chang). [100.4] To pay Mr Chen the sum of $1,000 in compensation. [101] Any licence presently held under the Act by Mr Loh is cancelled with effect at 5:00 pm on the 30 th clear calendar day after this decision is delivered to him. [102] Mr Loh is prevented from reapplying for any category of licence as a l...

5. Chowdhury v Standing [2012] NZIACDT 57 (30 August 2012) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...and application of funds statement in relation to his practice, and producing that to the Tribunal. [100.3] He will be expected to fully explain his personal financial circumstances, including providing a statement of assets and liabilities. [101] If Mr Standing does not respond, the Tribunal may proceed on the basis that Mr Standing has the means to meet the financial sanctions that fully reflect the findings against him. Timetable [102] The timetable for submissions will be as fo...

6. Chen v Gu-Chang [2013] NZIACDT 56 (30 August 2013) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...advised Mr Chen of his immigration prospects and the proper cost of the work required, there can be little doubt that he would have rejected any involvement with Ms Gu- Chang. She should not retain any benefit from her dishonesty. 11 [101] That her professional time was wasted was Ms Gu-Chang’s own fault and she should bear the cost of it. [102] I am satisfied the fees should be refunded in full. Determination and orders [103] Ms Gu-Chang is: [103.1] Censured....

7. Chen v Loh [2013] NZIACDT 55 (30 August 2013) [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...is: [100.1] Censured. [100.2] Ordered to pay a penalty of $6,000. 11 [100.3] Directed to refund fees of $29,600 (he has joint and several liability with Ms Gu- Chang). [100.4] To pay Mr Chen the sum of $1,000 in compensation. [101] Any licence presently held under the Act by Mr Loh is cancelled with effect at 5:00 pm on the 30 th clear calendar day after this decision is delivered to him. [102] Mr Loh is prevented from reapplying for any category of licence as a l...

8. Moctezuma v Chase-Seymour [2013] NZIACDT 40 (26 June 2013) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...them; it may of course embarrass them, but that was in Ms Chase-Seymour’s hands. [100] As Ms Chase-Seymour’s licence is not cancelled immediately, it is of particular importance for clients have access to her status and disciplinary history. [101] Accordingly, the decision upholding the complaint and the present decision will be published in the usual way. Determination and orders [102] Ms Chase-Seymour is: [102.1] Censured. [102.2] Ordered to pay a penalty of $5,000. [102...

9. ZQI v DI [2013] NZIACDT 70 (24 October 2013) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...inter partes considerations. [100] It is evident the complaint before the Tribunal has not been subject to the proper statutory process. As matters stand, the complaint is a very serious complaint of dishonesty, but wholly unsupported by facts. [101] It is evident this situation may have arisen as the Registrar has mistaken his statutory obligations; it maybe that the complaint should not have been referred, or there may be facts the Tribunal is not aware of that justify the complaint....

10. AJ v ZQ LCRO 134 / 2010 (7 February 2011) [pdf, 139 KB]

    ...returned to the Respondent and VC, this will result in the account of 30 October being unpaid. For the sake of clarity, the Standards Committee order to cancel all fees charged by WM after the date of settlement will be confirmed. The costs order [101] The third order made by the Standards Committee was that the Applicant pay costs of $750 to the New Zealand Law Society pursuant to Section 156(1)(n) of the Act. The result of this review is, that the finding of unsatisfactory cond...