Search Results

1. Annual report IPT 2016/2017 [pdf, 768 KB]

   ...has reduced by 102 days, in the deportation (non-resident) stream by 34 days, and in the refugee & protection stream by 87 days. Part of the reason for this positive development is that the average time taken by members from allocation of file or last hearing, to the decision, has been reduced by 17 days (from 32 to 15). The average age of appeals on hand has reduced by 56 days (from 156 to 100). The one stream where the Tribunal has limited ability to control the time betwe...

2. [2017] NZEnvC 193 Doctors Flat Vineyard Ltd v Central Otago District Council [pdf, 4.5 MB]

   ...the Bannockburn Water Supply and Bannockburn Wastewater Scheme, respectively 3. Subdivisional earthworks are to be undertaken in accordance with the conditions of the Archaeological Authority granted by Heritage New Zealand on 26 September 2016 file ref 2017119311013-035. LAND USE CONDITIONS 1. This land use consent authorises the residential building platforms on Lots 7- 10 as shown on the following plans: a) Proposed Subdivision of Lot 50 RC160312 and Easements over Lot 51 RC160...

3. [2017] NZEmpC 161 Aslam v Transportation Auckland Corp Ltd [pdf, 284 KB]

   ...Transportation Auckland may apply within 20 working days from the date of this judgment. Mr Aslam has a further 20 working days within which to respond to that application and then any submissions in reply from Transportation Auckland are to be filed within a further five working days. J C Holden Judge Judgment signed at 2.45 pm on 14 December 2017

4. Director of Human Rights Proceedings [NKR] v Accident Compensation Corporation (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...aggrieved] complained that ACC disclosed neuropsychological information and information about the existence of a “sensitive claim” to two physiotherapy practices without his consent or knowledge and in contradiction to express instructions on his ACC file. [The aggrieved person] considered that the information disclosed was sensitive and had no relevance to the injuries that were to be treated. Principle(s) applied Rule 11 of the Health Information Privacy Code Commissioner’s...

5. JE v FQ LCRO 213/2012 (17 June 2015) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...Mr SP Snr was residing and made enquiry of the manager as to Mr SP Snr’s state of health. • There was nothing remarkable in the fact that Mr SP Snr’s wife was not present at the interviews. Application for review [8] Mr and Mrs JE filed an application for review on 24 August 2012. [9] Grounds advanced in support of that application were: • There appeared to have been no medical examination of Mr SP Snr prior to the change of attorney being completed. • Requests fo...

6. AE v Decision to prosecute LCRO 93/2013 & 338/2013 (11 March 2014) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...Committee [B] when it met to consider the own motion investigation and the Committee in turn, issued its own determination on 10 October 2013. [25] The notice of determination of Standards Committee [B] recorded: After inquiring into the matter on file [X] and conducting a hearing on the papers, the Standards Committee determined that the matter and any and all issues involved in the matter be considered by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal pursuant to section 15...

7. KB v JR LCRO 191/2012 (14 May 2014) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...Committee determinations are not published other than to the parties. [3] Ms KB lodged her complaint with the New Zealand Law Society Complaints Service on behalf of and as attorney for her father, Mr CG. The application for review has been filed on the same basis. On receipt of the review application, Ms JR responded by providing a letter signed by Mr CG in which he advised that he had never been consulted about the complaints or approved of them. He requested that the compla...

8. C v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 414) & Complainant A [2018] NZREADT 20 [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...particulars of the affairs of the licensee, the Agency, and the complainant is prohibited. [62] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out appeal rights. Any appeal must be filed in the High Court within 20 working days of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision is served. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. _____________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairpe...

9. Li v The Real Estate Agents Authority NZREADT 10 [pdf, 346 KB]

   ...if required. 2018 NZREADT 10 - Li - Ruling [55] Pursuant to s 113 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, which sets out appeal rights. Any appeal must be filed in the High Court within 20 working days of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision is served. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. …………………………….…………...

10. [2018] NZEnvC 135 Bunnings Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 3.7 MB]

    ...company: (a) was a trade competitor of Bunnings; (b) did not state in its submission or provide evidence as to how it was directly affected by Bunnings' application ; and (c) was not directly affected by the application. [27] Bunnings filed an appeal of the decision to the Environment Court in Christchurch on 29 March 2018. 7 [28] HJSL gave notice of its wish to become a party to the appeal on 23 April 2018. The notice stated:6 (a) [HJSL] opposed the relief sought by...