Search Results

1. LCRO 151/2016 and 157/2016 NS v TD and TD v NS (27 September 2018) [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...finding that he had erred on this occasion, it did not wish to discourage lawyers from reporting suspected misconduct. Moreover, the breach was at the very low end of the unsatisfactory conduct spectrum. Application for review — Mr NS [26] Mr NS filed an application for review on 1 July 2016. He asks for the Committee’s unsatisfactory conduct determinations against him to be set aside and he seeks the imposition of a penalty on Mr TD for his unsatisfactory conduct. [27] As t...

2. [2019] NZEmpC 47 Postal Workers Union of Aotearoa Inc v New Zealand Post Ltd [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...to address this argument as it makes no material difference in terms of our analysis. We nevertheless deal with it for completeness. [46] We first record that during the course of the hearing Mr Kynaston advanced an application for leave to file a second amended statement of defence, seeking orders of rectification (based on the alleged mistake) and under s 192(2). That application was opposed by the Postal Workers Union and was dismissed for reasons that can be briefly summaris...

3. IPT 2019-20 Annual Report [pdf, 477 KB]

   ...decision was 395 days (13 months). By the end of June 2020, this period had reduced to 173 days (less than six months). Part of the reason for the overall improvement in timeliness is that the average time taken by members, from allocation of file or last hearing to the decision, is 23 days. This has been assisted by the work of the case managers who ensure that all files are fully prepared prior to allocation. The one stream where the Tribunal has had limited ability to control th...

4. [2020] NZREADT 29 – Molloy v Real Estate Agents Authority (9 July 2020) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...First Respondent AND ROGER PALLATT Second Respondent AND NICK KEARNEY Third Respondent On the papers Tribunal: Hon P J Andrews (Chairperson) Mr G Denley (Member) Mr N O’Connor (Member) Submissions filed by: Mr R Hargreaves & Ms S Harris on behalf of the Appellants Ms S Bishop, on behalf of the Authority Date of Ruling: 9 July 2020 ____________________________________________________________________ DECISION O...

5. W and W v Southern Response Earthquake Services Ltd [2020] CEIT-2020-0020 [pdf, 549 KB]

   ............................................................................................................................................ p23 [1] It was agreed at the first case management conference on 11 June 2020 that the Tribunal would determine a preliminary issue after receiving written submissions. A bundle of agreed documents has been prepared and filed. The parties have now filed their submissions on that preliminary issue as directed. The issue [2] The Tribunal’s...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 82 Barry v C I Builders Ltd [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...contracted builder was not in an employment relationship in significantly different circumstances. 22 Fleming v Attorney-General [2021] NZEmpC 77 at [39]. [69] If the parties cannot agree costs I will receive memoranda, with Mr Barry filing and serving any application for costs within 20 working days of the date of this judgment; CIB filing and serving any response within a further 15 working days; and anything strictly in reply within a further five working days....

7. Attorney-General Submissions - 4 December 2017 [pdf, 383 KB]

   ...4390891_3 6 also means they must be for that purpose per se, and strictly confined to this object.14 Aspects of the proposal which give rise to jwisdictional issues 14. The following rules, objectively considered in light of all of the evidence filed, raise jurisdictional issues for the Court, as well as substantive issues to be resolved on the evidence filed: 14.1 Rule 1, which makes taking, removal, damage or destruction of indigenous flora or fauna15 in a wahi tapu area a...

8. LCRO 181/2017 FW and KP v BG (31 October 2019) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...October 2016) to realise that invoice had not been sent to them earlier was “a genuine mistake”. This was “not an ethical issue, rather…a civil matter between the parties”. Application for review [33] In their application for review filed in this Office on 27 September 2017, Mr FW and Ms KP seek a review of the Committee’s decision to take no further action in respect of one issue only, namely, the firm’s recommendation that [Firm B] be appointed as successor to [Ar...

9. [2021] NZEmpC 197 Mikes Transport Warehouse Ltd v Vermuelen [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...See above at [9]-[11] and [53]. [82] Costs are reserved. The parties are reminded that these proceedings were provisionally assigned category 2B for costs purposes. If costs cannot be agreed I will receive memoranda, with Mr Vermuelen filing and serving within 20 working days; MTW Ltd and MTE Ltd filing and serving within a further 10 working days; and anything strictly in reply within a further five working days. Christina Inglis Chief Judge Judgment signe...

10. [2021] NZREADT 22 - Jenkins v The Real Estate Agents Authority, Roberts & Tai Rakena (14 May 2021) [pdf, 316 KB]

    ...[15] The Committee was not satisfied that any unsatisfactory conduct had been established against the manager of the Agency, and determined to take no further action on the complaint against him. A Notice of Appeal against that determination was filed, but it was out of time and could not be accepted by the Tribunal. The Committee’s penalty decision [16] The Committee placed the licensees’ conduct in the range of moderate-level unsatisfactory conduct.7 It rejected the licensee...