Search Results

1. HNL v SEC [2013] NZIACDT 11 (19 March 2013) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...Act. [99] In other respects, the complaint is dismissed. Submissions on Sanctions [100] As the complaint has been upheld, section 51 allows the Tribunal to impose sanctions. However, section 50 permits the Tribunal to take no further action. [101] The Authority and Mr HNL have the opportunity to provide submissions on the appropriate sanctions, including potential orders for costs, refund of fees and compensation. Whether they do so or not, Mr SEC is entitled to make submissions a...

2. PQ v Hakaoro [2013] NZIACDT 48 (8 August 2013) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...Provide a statement of assets and liabilities, and income, both verified on oath; and [100.2] A similarly verified and full disclosure of any interest as a beneficiary or potential beneficiary in any trust (or other material financial interest). [101] If the complainant seeks compensation for the professional services that were not delivered in exchange for the domestic services she provided, the Tribunal will proceed on the basis the undelivered professional services had a value of $5,...

3. AQ v ZI LCRO 105 / 2010 (11 February 2011) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...be any costs order in respect of the Standards Committee hearing. I wish to record that this should not be any way considered to set a precedent to be followed by the Standards Committees in future where breaches of the Rules are considered. [101] The matter was of average complexity, and proceeded as a hearing on the papers. In accordance therefore with the LCRO Cost Orders Guidelines, the Respondent will be ordered to make payment of the sum of $1,200.00 on account of costs....

4. Bratton v Le Lievre - Muriwhenua Incorporation [2017] Māori Appellate Court MB 131 (2017 APPEAL 131) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...clause) of the LTO was not yet certain and his interpretation as against s 150B(1)(b) of the Act are incorrect. Counsel maintains that the LTO comes within the definition of long- 12 Ibid at [101] 13 Le Lievre v Muriwhenua Incorporation – Muriwhenua Incorporation (2016) 123 Taitokerau MB 240 (123 TTK 240) at [97] to [99] 2017 Maori Appellate Court MB 136 term lease as it has the potential to run over 52 years with the e...

5. Amoroa - Omuriwaka Māori Reservation (2017) 163 Waiariki MB 93 (163 WAR 93) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...assessed in a monetary sense then there would most likely be a debt owed to Tania from Omuriwaka, as her personal koha has a greater value than the debt. This matter is hereby laid to rest unless further mitigating factors arise. 163 Waiariki MB 101 [34] Tania Mihinui is not a responsible trustee. From the evidence before me I gather that she is or was a member of Omuriwaka Incorporation. Tania was present at the March hearing. Matters concerning the misappropriation of...

6. [2017] NZEnvC 134 Bay of Plenty Regional Council v Vision Charitable Trust [pdf, 515 KB]

   ...following decisions where a SUbstantial proportion of an applicant's costs were awarded: Section 285 RMA. 2 Foodstuffs (Otago Southland) Properties Ltd v Dunedin City Council [1996] NZRMA 385. 3 Tasman District Council v Douglas, [2010] NZEnvC 101 at paragraphs [11] and [17]; see also Hele Harvest Ltd v Marlborough District Council (unreported); HC Wellington, CIV-2004-485-1669, 24 February 2005, Wild J. 4 (a) Auckland Council v Lau,4 where the respondents were ordered to pa...

7. Singh v Patel [2019] NZIACDT 17 (28 March 2019) [pdf, 142 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]. 9 [49] The Tribunal has received from Mr Patel a statement of reply (11 May 2017), together with a letter of submissions of the same date. He does not request an oral hearing. [50] There are no submissions fro

8. WQ v Emberson [2019] NZIACDT 28 (8 May 2019) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...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 v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 9 e) maintain each client file for a period of no less than 7 years from closing the file, and make those records available for inspection on request by the Immigration Advisers Authority, and … [48] Prior to...

9. EQE v ICQ [2019] NZIACDT 37 (6 June 2019) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...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 v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 7 [35] The complainant has provided a statement of reply and letter, dated 16 August 2018, including supporting documents. He says [the adviser] should have assessed his case thoroughly on her own and not used u...

10. LCRO 109/2020 SV v FT (28 January 2021) [pdf, 198 KB]

    ...Standards Committees) Regulations 2008. 14 [100] I agree with the Committee that the apparent reluctance to provide Mr FT with the information requested, contributed to the problems that arose as a consequence of the caveat being lodged. [101] The late Mrs SV had two children, one of whom was excluded entirely from her will. [102] In such circumstances it would not have been unexpected that the disinherited daughter would consider possibility of challenging the will. [103] I...