Search Results

1. Varela v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 85 (15 September 2014) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...complaint is one of them) I have determined Ms Devi should be excluded from reapplying for a licence for two years. I explain why I do not consider rehabilitation is realistic. The sanctions relating to Ms Devi’s ability to hold a licence address the protection of the public and desirability of rehabilitation. In determining the imposition of additional sanctions in this case, it is appropriate to have regard to the fact that part of the penalty is to exclude Ms Devi from practising. [...

2. Vikashwarjeet and Devi v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 82 (15 September 2014) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...complaint is one of them) I have determined Ms Devi should be excluded from reapplying for a licence for two years. I explain why I do not consider rehabilitation is realistic. The sanctions relating to Ms Devi’s ability to hold a licence address the protection of the public and desirability of rehabilitation. In determining the imposition of additional sanctions in this case, it is appropriate to have regard to part of the penalty is to exclude Ms Devi from practising. [15] Each of th...

3. Naidu v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 83 (15 September 2014) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...complaint is one of them) I have determined Ms Devi should be excluded from reapplying for a licence for two years. I explain why I do not consider rehabilitation is realistic. The sanctions relating to Ms Devi’s ability to hold a licence address the protection of the public and desirability of rehabilitation. In determining the imposition of additional sanctions in this case, it is appropriate to have regard to the fact that part of the penalty is to exclude Ms Devi from practising. [...

4. Khan v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 84 (15 September 2014) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...complaint is one of them) I have determined Ms Devi should be excluded from reapplying for a licence for two years. I explain why I do not consider rehabilitation is realistic. The sanctions relating to Ms Devi’s ability to hold a licence address the protection of the public and desirability of rehabilitation. It is appropriate to have regard to the fact that part of the penalty is to exclude Ms Devi from practising. [13] Each of the nine complaints involved an independent course of con...

5. Chand v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 80 (15 September 2014) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...complaint is one of them) I have determined Ms Devi should be excluded from reapplying for a licence for two years. I explain why I do not consider rehabilitation is realistic. The sanctions relating to Ms Devi’s ability to hold a licence address the protection of the public and desirability or rehabilitation. In determining the imposition of additional sanctions in this case, it is appropriate to have regard to part of the penalty is to exclude Ms Devi from practising. [13] Each of th...

6. BORA Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill [pdf, 425 KB]

   ...restrictions, such as attachment and set-off, as any other civil claim. 4.2 To the extent the amendments in the Bill relating to unlawful detention claims may have a retrospective effect, no issue arises under s 26 of the Bill of Right Act. That only protects against retrospectivity in relation to criminal offences and penalties. 4.3 The differential treatment of prisoners does not raise any issue with s 19 of the Bill of Rights Act as status as a prisoner is not a prohibited gr...

7. Complaints Assessment Committee 408 v Nicholas Schembri, Joseph Lupi & Timothy Kearins [2017] NZREADT 56 [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...have been set out in prior decisions of the Tribunal such as CAC v Black,7 REAA v Lum-on,8 CAC v Walker,9 and REAA v Kumandan.10 [30] A penalty must fulfil various functions in a disciplinary case. These functions are discussed below. (a) Protecting the public Section 3 of the Act sets out the purposes of the legislation. The purpose of the Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in respect of transactions that relate to real estate and to promote public c...

8. LCRO 253/2015 SL v NA (28 June 2019) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...• He submitted that “the conduct in question amounted to an agreement to the contrary within the meaning of [r] 10.7”. • He also asserted that “the fee proposed by Mr NA was $45,000 which was the amount A/SL Law Limited agreed to protect Mr NA for” and that Mr NA had been paid in excess of that amount. [14] The outcome sought by Mr SL was for it to be held that neither he nor his firm had any liability to pay the outstanding amount. Procedure [15] This review has...

9. [2019] NZEnvC 120 The Friends of Sherwood Trust v Auckland Council [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...from having a costs award made against them. The key consideration is whether the arguments advanced by them were without substance, in the sense here of being legally without substance. [26] We found that the Council and DOC took considerable care to undertake the process surrounding the drop of 1080 properly. In relation to consultation with mana whenua, we were satisfied that this had been adequate14 and in relation to those who had the potential to be adversely affected by the o...

10. Harland v ACC [2012] NZACA 2 [pdf, 62 KB]

    ...March 2007. [2] The appeal was against a review decision dated 20 February 2003 (the review decision), which in turn was against the Corporation’s decision made on 10 March 2003 (the decision), to decline an application for backdated attendant care under s 80(3) of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 (the application). 2 [3] The impetus for the application to reinstate the appeal was my decision in Nee Harland v ACC [2012] NZACA in respect of the appeal filed unde...