Search Results

1. [2024] NZIACDT 22 – QN v Nandan (29 August 2024) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...complainant of the decline of the residence visa on 19 November 2018, in breach of cl 26(b). (5) Did not maintain a well-managed filing system concerning the complainant and did not make her records available for inspection by the Authority when requested (on 13 November 2019 and 8 April 2021), in breach of cl 26(a)(iii), (d) and (e). Conflict of interest (6) Did not disclose in writing a conflict of interest to the complainant and did not obtain her written consent to represe...

2. [2015] NZ EmpC 119 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...plaintiff’s solicitors word-for-word including that the documents purportedly filed were to be returned to them. Nevertheless, early on the following day, 16 July 2015, the plaintiff applied for leave but without including in that application a form of draft interlocutory application and supporting documents. [15] I accept that there may have been a misunderstanding by the plaintiff’s solicitors as a result of incomplete communications to them by the Registry. In these circ...

3. [2015] NZSSAA 038, 28 May [pdf, 30 KB]

   ...Authority that it needed to know more about the appellant’s reasons for purchasing the vehicle at the time it was purchased, what public transport options might be available to him in his area and what sort of work he was seeking. The appellant was requested to attend a hearing at short notice in March 2014. He agreed by telephone to attend this hearing but did not attend. The matter was adjourned on that occasion. A further Notice of Hearing was sent to the appellant’s advocate f...

4. Moanaroa v Ruwhiu - The Kaiawhina Trust (2014) 91 Taitokerau MB 29 (91 TTK 29) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...There is no documentation to confirm how Mr Hettig has been appointed as a beneficiary of the Trust. [6] In any event, Ms Moanaroa confirms the contents of Mr Hettig’s affidavit and complains that the Trust has not provided her with full information about the financial affairs of the Trust. She believes the trustees have mismanaged the Trust’s property resulting in the default under the ANZ mortgage. [7] Mr Hettig has sworn a more detailed affidavit. He confirms that...

5. Tangitau v Hakaoro [2015] NZIACDT 27 (17 March 2015) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...make submissions and respond to any submissions from the other parties. [20] Any application for an order for the payment of costs or expenses under section 51(1)(g) should be accompanied by a schedule particularising the amounts and basis for the claim. [21] The Registrar is requested to report on the extent to which Mr Hakaoro has complied with previous orders the Tribunal has imposed in respect of sanctions, and the steps she has taken to enforce the orders. Timetable [22] The...

6. Juan v Ramos [2016] NZIACDT 3 (14 January 2016) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...financial penalty to denounce the matters giving rise to the complaint. I give Ms Ramos the benefit of recognising the grounds for complaint were not due to her wilful defiance of professional obligations, rather she erroneously believed she could perform pro bono work under a different service delivery paradigm. Ms Ramos has already had a financial penalty of $4,000 imposed on the Saul complaint, given the additional training requirement, my view is that a total penalty of $5,000 across...

7. CAC 20006 v England [2013] NZREADT 97 [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...terms of water tightness if maintained in current condition and from inspection that can only be considered to be very good.” 6. However, Mr England did not mention or provide Mr Hamid with a copy of a prior inspection report that Mr England had requested and obtained from NZ Inspection Services Limited in September 2004. That report had identified moisture readings at the property that were higher than the accepted standard building code, and had recommended that specific remedial...

8. [2015] NZEmpC 45 Bracewell v Richmond Services Ltd [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...parties. Secondly, it is asserted that errors were made in my substantive judgment such that it is now inappropriate for me to hear the application for rehearing, or if granted, the rehearing itself. [5] For Richmond it is submitted that this request has to be considered in light of the dicta of the Supreme Court in Saxmere Company Ltd v New Zealand Wool Board Disestablishment Company Ltd; 4 it is further submitted that having regard to the principles of that case, there is no co...

9. DOP v Nelson (Application for In-Court Media Coverage) [2013] NZHRRT 13 [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...the Director of Proceedings and Ms Nelson were asked to advise whether the application was opposed and if so, the reasons for the opposition. The Chairperson would then decide whether to grant or decline the application on the papers or convene a formal hearing or telephone conference. 2 [3] The responses filed by the parties have provided no grounds for the convening of a formal hearing or of a telephone conference. The application is therefore to be dealt with on the papers.

10. Auckland Standards Committee v Morahan [2015] NZLCDT 35 [pdf, 31 KB]

    ...deplore the respondent’s attacks of which those mentioned are but a few. Mr Morris took time to rebut the criticisms. We have accepted his rebuttal. [18] We have concluded that there is no evident remorse on the part of the respondent. His request at the penalty hearing that we should revisit his state of mind demonstrated a lack of insight into his conduct and a lack of understanding of his wrong-doing. His emotional expression at this hearing was more obviously based on the...