Search Results

1. [2020] NZIACDT 37 - TTD v Zheng (7 September 2020) [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal [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, above n 6, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 12 resignation letter was only, “HR policy for those who need to leave the company for a long period of time”. The complainant’s manager was aware of the leave letter. There was no misleading beha...

2. M and M v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2019] CEIT-2019-0047 [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...Conclusion 82 Timber flooring 83 Conclusion 85 Master build guarantee 86 Conclusion 91 Professional fees 92 Conclusion 93 Possible framing damage caused by failed EQC repairs 94 Overall cost 99 Using quantity surveyors 101 Tender 104 Analysis 105 Conclusion 115 Process 116 Overview [1] This case demonstrates how to resolve disputes between homeowners and insurers who have agreed on the repairs needed to meet the policy standard but c...

3. [2022] NZIACDT 29 - EQ v McCarthy (19 December 2022) [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...the same reason, only be briefly summarised here. 9 Section 51(1). 10 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151]. 11 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 10, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 11 [59] Mr McCarthy had earlier in his life been a police officer for some years, but left due to burnout and a diagnosis of [redacted]. In addition, he developed a number of chronic stress-associated health p...

4. [2022] NZREADT 15 – Complaints Assessment Committee 2108 v Rankin Tremain Real Estate Wairarapa Ltd (10 August 2022) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...of 28 August 2020. In respect of Bowen Street, he apparently 2 Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s 105. 3 Section 109(1). 4 Section 109(4). 5 Section 110. 6 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [101]–[102], & [112]. 9 denied the forgery in his discussion with Mr Slater, but he has not denied it to the Tribunal. Indeed, he admits the charge, including the Bowen Street forgery, before the Tribunal. [52] The charge agai...

5. [2022] NZIACDT 27 - ZK v Li (8 November 2022) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 14 Section 50. 15 Section 51(1). 16 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151]. 17 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 16, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 13 Her pay structure was clearly written in the contract. Mr Li never picked up the issue that payment by commission was excluded, as a result of which they went ahead and paid $10,000 in fees and was...

6. Aitcheson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Social Rehabilitation, Attendant care, Laundry Services) [2023] NZACC 143 [pdf, 389 KB]

   ...and Pete over the years, Ivan’s quality of life would be very different, with the likelihood of his being in a secure unit and possibly more highly medicated/sedated than he is at present. [57] Ms Bay recommended attendant care at level 1 of 101 hours per week and home help of 14 hours 30 minutes per week. [58] Ms Caroline Inglis, an occupational therapist, attended Ms Bay’s assessment and peer reviewed the special needs assessment report. ACC’s decision of 25 June 2013 t...

7. [2023] NZEmpC 191 Appleton v Tasman Cargo Airlines Pty Ltd [pdf, 311 KB]

   ...Relations Act 2000, s 123(1)(c)(i). 15 Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [2018] NZEmpC 113, [2018] ERNZ 337. See too Waikato District Health Board v Archibald [2017] NZEmpC 132 at [62]; and GF v Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service [2023] NZEmpC 101 at [162]: band 1 $0-$12,000; band 2 $12,000-$50,000; band 3 over $50,000. [99] In the circumstances, and taking into account recent compensatory awards, I consider that, but for contribution, Mr Appleton would have been entitl...

8. [2023] NZREADT 11 - CAC 2103 v Lieven (15 May 2023) [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...his or her conduct might breach the Act, but proceeded regardless.18 [76] Ms Lieven is alleged to have wilfully or recklessly breached r 6.3 of the Rules. This Rule was considered by the Tribunal in Jackman v Complaints Assessment Committee 10100 where it accepted that a breach of r 6.3 would be justified by conduct which:19 …if known by the public generally, would lead them to think that licensees should not condone it or find it to be acceptable. Acceptance that such conduc...

9. [2024] NZEnvC 024 Environmental Defence Society Inc v Minister for Environment [pdf, 373 KB]

   ...NESPF if: a) the rule gives effect to an objective developed to give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management11 b) the rule gives effect to any of policies 11, 13, 15 and 22 of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 201012 c) the rule provides for the protection of significant natural areas;13 or d) the rule manages any activities in any green, yellow, or orange zone containing separation point granite soils areas that are identified in a plan. In 20...

10. [2024] NZIACDT 22 – QN v Nandan (29 August 2024) [pdf, 229 KB]

    ...(4). 6 Sparks v Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal [2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 7 Section 50. 8 Section 51(1). 9 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] and [151]. 10 At [97], [101]–[102] and [112]. 10 amount on the top”.11 Ms Nandan even created an account in the complainant’s name with Immigration NZ to which the complainant had no access. [54] The complainant also sent to the Tribunal further subm...