Search Results

1. E v D [2019] NZIACDT 2 (30 January 2019) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...2 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 45(2) & (3). 3 Section 49(3) & (4). 4 Section 50. 5 Section 51(1). 6 Section 53(1). 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 12 [67] According to Ms D, the statement of complaint did not adequately represent the full facts. She was anxious about responding though, as a lot of her knowledge was second hand. She doubted her ability to

2. [2018] NZEnvC 248 Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   ...Court for reconsideration. Advancing its case without sufficient regard to all the works enabled by the NOR, QAC would have caused RPL to incur unnecessary cost. [37] During the same hearing RPL sought: 14 [2014] NZEnvC 244 at [71]-[89] and [94]-[101]. 5 [2015] NZEnvC 222 at [258]. 0 ' [2015] NZEnvC 222 at [9] and [28] . z: a ... "h . ~ , ;~ -{f ~l' ._ ~",\ ~OUflT 01' "' ... / .. _------.. - 11 (a) a determination of the legal (interpret...

3. [2021] NZEmpC 25 Smiths City (Southern) Ltd (in receivership) v Claxton [pdf, 296 KB]

   ...whether the plaintiff could prevent the defendant from working for another courier business. The first plaintiff, Post Haste, had assumed 7 Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 1014 at 1020, [1940] 3 All ER 549 at 553 (HL) per Viscount Simon LC; the context of this discussion is whether a provision of the Companies Act 1929 (UK) created some sort of statutory exemption. 8 At 1026 and 556. 9 Warren Skerrett, above...

4. LCRO 105/2020 AG v BH & CI (19 February 2021) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...WASCA 115). 12 Hunstanton v Cambourne and Chester LCRO 167/2009 (February 2010) at [15]. 13 Application for review, supporting reasons at [9]. 15 were inattentive or inefficient in the manner in which they managed the various proceedings. [101] Mr BH notes that Ms AG had been successful in all of the proceedings.14 [102] I have, as did the Committee, considered each of the r 9 factors and have carefully reviewed the time records. That examination has been conducted against the...

5. LCRO 207/2015 CA v BE (21 August 2018) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...to a consideration as to whether Mr BE, in pressing his client’s case, went too far. [100] For the reasons traversed above, I do not consider that his correspondence was constructed with intent to cause embarrassment or distress to Mrs CA. [101] Inevitably, the dispute would have inconvenienced Mrs CA and would have been unpleasant for her. It is compellingly clear that she considered that the allegations levelled against her were unfair and potentially compromising to her reputa...

6. Registrar of IAA v Ho [2019] NZIACDT 54 (31 July 2019) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...[2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 5 Section 50. 6 Section 51(1). 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citation omitted). 8 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 7, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 8 [42] The Tribunal has received from the Registrar the statement of complaint, dated 6 December 2017, with supporting documents. [43] Ms Ho filed a statement of reply, dated 3 January 2018, with supporting...

7. KXBK v GVH [2019] NZIACDT 74 (1 November 2019) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 8 Section 50. 9 Section 51(1). 10 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citation omitted). 11 Z, above n 10, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 11 [62] The adviser requests an oral hearing, but given the outcome the Tribunal does not require the appearance of any person.12 The complaint will be determined on the papers. ASSESSMENT [63] The Registr...

8. LCRO 55/2020 MY v KA (5 October 2020) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...(disregard for Mr KA’s instructions) is captured by its finding that Mr MY had breached r 3 of the Rules by failing to respond to those instructions in a timely way. In a sense therefore, there is an element of duplication across those findings. [101] However, the Committee also said that r 11 of the Rules was infringed by Mr MY because of his responses to the Committee’s attempts to resolve the matter, and that this conduct reflected poorly on the legal profession. [102] I hav...

9. Baker v Hemana - Tataraakina C (2020) 87 Takitimu MB 100 (87 TKT 100) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...24 December 2020 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ MATUA ISAAC Judgment of Chief Judge W W Isaac Copies to: L Watson, Barrister and Solicitor, 342 Gloucester Street, Taradale, Napier 4112, leo@leowatson.co.nz 87 Tākitimu MB 101 Hei tīmatanga kōrero – Introduction [1] On 23 June 2020 Mr Nigel Baker applied to the Court for an injunction preventing any further damage and injury to Tataraakina C block and associated wāhi tapu sites located on the whenua...

10. TSO v Essina [2020] NZIACDT 2 (16 January 2020) [pdf, 117 KB]

    ...[2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 4 Section 50. 5 Section 51(1). 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citation omitted). 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 6, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 11 2009, the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 and any applicable regulations. Advisers 29. A licensed immigration adviser must not misrepresent or promote in a false, fraudulent or deceptive manner:...