Search Results

1. Langhorne v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACA 11 [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...appellant’s costs before the issuing of the Authority’s decision. [100] With respect, costs inevitably follow the outcome of any proceedings. It is inevitable that costs would be considered following the Appeal Authority’s decision. [101] Further, it was agreed at the appeal hearing that the issue of costs would be dealt with following the Appeal Authority’s decision. [102] The same principles applicable to an award on appeal apply to an award for preparation of sub...

2. Te Whiu v King - Panguru C9, C10 and C11(2016) 128 Taitokerau MB 100 (128 TTK 100) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...MATIU KING AND MARY TOIA Respondents Hearing: 19 March 2015 26 June 2015 12 October 2015 18 December 2015 (Heard at Kaikohe) Judgment: 18 April 2016 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG 128 Taitokerau MB 101 Introduction [1] Patrick Jonathan Te Whiu applies for a combined partition of his interests in Panguru C9, Panguru C10 and Panguru C11. 1 [2] The issue in this case is whether the partition should be granted. Background [3]...

3. ENV-2016-AKL-000197 Adams v Auckland Council [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...Regulations 2003). Advice If you have any questions about this notice, contact the Environment Court in Auckland. Names and addresses of persons served with a copy of this notice Environment Court PO Box 7147 Wellesley Street Auckland 1010 unitaryplan.ecappeals@justice.co.nz Auckland Council Private Bag 92300 Victoria Street West Auckland 1142 Unitaryplan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Page 6 Adam Haycock From: donotreply@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz Sent: Wednesday, 3...

4. [2018] NZEmpC 93 Jacks Hardware and Timber Ltd v First Union Inc [pdf, 360 KB]

   ...paragraphs relate to the same issue as was referred to at para 7 of Mr Dippie’s brief. For the reasons given with regard to those paragraphs, I consider the evidence in paras 6 and 7 of Mr Finn-House’s brief is inadmissible. Paragraph 8 [101] The evidence in para 8 replicates that which is set out at para 8 of Mr Dippie’s evidence. For the same reason as was given in connection with his evidence, I rule that the evidence in Mr Finn-House’s brief at para 8 is inadmissible...

5. DJ v Dua [2019] NZIACDT 6 (14 February 2019) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...1 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 45(2) & (3). 2 Section 49(3) & (4). 3 Section 50. 4 Section 51(1). 5 Section 53(1). 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 10 passport. They were then deported. All of these things happened because Mr Dua did not properly represent them. [51] At the request of the Tribunal, further documents were provided by the Registrar on 8 Fe

6. Hunia v New Zealand Police [2021] NZHRRT 12 [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...to any 13 other meaning. The ICCPR right to privacy was not incorporated into New Zealand domestic law by the Bill of Rights. [56.4] As submitted by the Police, employees of the Police have no reasonable expectation (Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305) that information obtained as a result of a criminal investigation will not be used for the purpose of misconduct inquiries. The Police occupy a unique position of power and responsibility. The Police Code of Conduct and...

7. LCRO 73/2019 LM v NO (27 July 2020) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...Deed proceedings, he “hadn’t resolved whether to act” in those proceedings. But he acknowledged a “hypothetical” retainer. [100] It is, as I have said above, inconceivable that Mr NO could have acted for S against PQ, at any stage. [101] If Mr NO could not have acted for S in the Deed proceedings themselves, how could he have given him advice about those proceedings which included advising him to name PQ – his other client – as a defendant? [102] In my view it matte...

8. LCRO 2/2019 RCN and OCN as Trustees v MA, JS, LB and GD (27 May 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...adjudicator did not award costs to [Company C] which 17 would usually follow a successful claim. In this regard, the adjudicator acknowledged to some extent the merits of the submissions made by [Law firm A]. The conflict of interests [101] Mr GD became involved with the claim by [Company C] as a director of [Law Firm A] Trustees 14 Ltd, one of the trustees of the [Name] Trust. The firm held the proceeds of sale of the property in its Trust account and Mr CN had requested tha...

9. [2019] NZREADT 40 - Catley & Boyle - Ruling [pdf, 402 KB]

   ...Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act is very different from the procedure prescribed by the Real Estate Agents Act; in particular in that only the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal has jurisdiction to impose penalties (under s 101). Submissions for the Authority [32] Ms Mok submitted for the Authority that in s 111, the legislature proceeded on the assumption that a Complaints Assessment Committee’s determination of unsatisfactory conduct under s 89(2)(b) inclu...

10. MG v Jean Xiujing Hu [2019] NZIACDT 20 (10 April 2019) [pdf, 152 KB]

    ...(4). 5 Sparks v Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 6 Section 50 of the Act. 7 Section 51(1). 8 Section 53(1). 9 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 11 1.5 Written agreements A licensed immigration adviser must ensure that: a) before any agreement is entered into, clients are made aware, in writing and in plain language, of the terms of the agreement and a...