Search Results

1. BW v DJ LCRO 9 / 2013 (20 September 2013) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...Committee: 11 a. Should not have taken into account DJ’s submission that BW intentionally failed to disclose the existence of the guarantees; and b. Should have given particular attention to the secrecy surrounding the existence of BW’s file, which DJ says she did not disclose to her employer, at BW’s request; a contention that BW denies. [51] Both of those submissions would require the Committee to make findings on the parties’ intentions. Although those submissions...

2. [2018] NZEmpC 9 Lyttelton Port Co Ltd v Arthurs [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...Arthurs and one took place on 19 December 2014. At that meeting Mr Glen Arthurs, who attended with his brother and spoke for him, advised that Mr Arthurs had consented to take the drug test but was not prepared to sign the written permission. The file note of the meeting on 19 December 2014 also records that Mr Glen Arthurs advised that his brother would be happy to look at a rehabilitation agreement and to discuss it with his own doctor, but that as he had a medical certificate...

3. [2016] NZEnvC 152 Koha Trust Holdings Limited v Constellation Brands New Zealand Limited [pdf, 735 KB]

   ...APPLICATION FOR DECLARATION 2 A: Findings made on certain factual allegations. B: Declarations refused in exercise of the Court's discretion. C: Costs reserved. REASONS FOR DECISION Introduction [1] On 14 January 2016 the applicant filed proceedings seeking a declaration, alleging lapse of a resource consent held by the Second Respondent for the taking of water in the Marlborough District, as follows: That resource consent U060329 was not given effect to within the me...

4. Chand and Kumari v Prakash [2012] NZIACDT 85 (3 December 2012) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...having regard to Mr Prakash’s loss of ability to continue as a member of the profession. A penalty of $2,500 will be imposed. [103] Mr Prakash is the only person holding a licence in his practice. It appears he has a substantial number of active files, and it will take time to make arrangements for substitute licensed immigration advisers to take over files. [104] It is a matter of some concern that Mr Prakash should undertake that process without supervision, however there is no j...

5. BORA Customs and Excise Bill [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...take no longer than reasonably necessary to determine whether evidential material relating to relevant offending is on the device. Unless the device is to be detained for a full search, the device must be returned after the search and any temporary files created in the search must be then destroyed. The return of the device and destruction of any temporary files means therefore that the Search and Surveillance Act does not apply as the initial search will not result in any seized material...

6. [2014] NZLCDT 80 Wellington Standards Committee v CLS [pdf, 412 KB]

   ...OTW. (c) That if anything happened to him the practitioner was to sort out the business and either continue to operate it until a suitable joiner was found, or to sell it at the best possible price. [16] The deceased’s advice was recorded in a file memo created by the practitioner and dated 1 April 2009. [17] The Tribunal’s finding is that the practitioner’s conduct cannot be criticised in respect of this issue. It has taken into account that there were a number of courses...

7. [2017] NZSAAA 03 (7 July 2017) [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...timeframe but which do not in any way constitute reasons for it. The reason for not submitting her parents’ income by the due date remains her belief that that income exceeded the threshold and none of the other occurrences traversed in the appeal file would have had any effect on that belief. In particular, while the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake clearly disrupted her study and no doubt contributed to her decision to, as she puts it, place her application “on the back burne...

8. Brooks v Taekwondo Union of New Zealand Inc [2017] NZHRRT 20 [pdf, 333 KB]

   ...April 2015 addressed to Mr Brooks the e-mail correspondence between TUNZ and Mr Aldridge was sent as an attachment. By e-mail dated 28 April 2015 Mr Brooks advised the Privacy Commissioner the attachment could not be opened and that he required a file in readable format. It is not clear when this issue was resolved. For the purpose of this decision it is sufficient to note only that the provision on 15 April 2015 of a few pages of correspondence passing between Mr Aldridge and TUNZ is...

9. BORA End of Life Choices Bill section 7 report [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...the practitioner must get a second opinion from an independent medical practitioner identified by the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand (‘SCENZ’) Group. 14. The independent medical practitioner must read the person’s file and examine them to decide whether the person is or is not eligible, or would be eligible if his or her competence was established by a specialist. 7 15. If one or both medical practitioners consider that the person would be eligible...

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

    ...complaint in this regard was that the technical arguments put forward by Mr JS were not the best approach and they would have been better advised to try and achieve a settlement of [Company C]’s claim. [30] The Committee noted correspondence on the file that confirms Mr JS did in fact seek to pursue settlement at the first opportunity but was constrained by Mr and Mrs CN’s requests for further information.8 [31] [Company C] sought, and obtained, orders against the Trust before...