Search Results

1. TX v MGK [2013] NZIACDT 14 (19 March 2013) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...nationals, and wished to migrate to New Zealand. Ms TX, her husband and their two children all wished to migrate. [4] Ms TX approached Mr MGK, and was advised that applying under the Long Term Business Visa program was an appropriate option. [5] On 5 May 2010 Ms TX entered into an agreement for the provision of Mr MGK’s professional services. The total cost was $11,600. [6] The visa application was lodged on 13 September 2010; on 30 September 2010 Immigration New Zealand indicated

2. INZ v BUH [2013] NZIACDT 45 (01 August 2013) [pdf, 86 KB]

   BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2013] NZIACDT 45 Reference No: IACDT 023/13 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 BY The Registrar of Immigration Advisers Registrar BETWEEN Immigration New Zealand Complainant AND BUH Adviser DECISION REPRESENTATION: Registrar: In person. Complainant: Imm

3. BORA Administration of Justice (Reform of contempt of court) Bill [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...Bill of Rights Act affirms that everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained. The Bill creates two powers to detain outside normal criminal procedure (although these largely reflect existing common law and statutory powers). 9. Clauses 16 and 17 provide that a judicial officer may order that a person be taken into custody and detained until the rising of the court if the judicial officer believes the person is wilfully obstructing the court, or wilfully and without la...

4. T v Mudaliar [2017] NZIACDT 10 (28 July 2017) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...and Employment, Auckland. Complainant: In person. Adviser: Mr N King, Lawyer, Auckland. Date Issued: 28 July 2017 2 DECISION Introduction [1] The Tribunal upheld this complaint in a decision dated 6 August 2015, EBT v Mudaliar [2015] NZIACDT 79, and subsequently issued an interim decision on sanctions EBT v Mudaliar [2015] NZIACDT 92. The interim decision reserved orders relating to the refund of fees, costs and compensation. Instead of completin...

5. [2024] NZEnvC 175 Zant v Central Hawke's Bay District Council [pdf, 245 KB]

   Zant v Hawke’s Bay Regional Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 175 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under Clause 14 of the First Schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN C & T ZANT (ENV-2023-AKL-120) Appellants AND CENTRAL HAWKE’S BAY DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge MJL Dickey Hearing: On the papers Last case event: 26 June 2024 Date of...

6. U Ltd v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 627 (5 September 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 627 APPLICANT U Ltd RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: T Ltd is to pay U Ltd the sum of $4,260.75 within 21 days of the date of this order. Reasons 1. On 15 August 2021, the parties entered into a contract whereby U Ltd would carry out digital marketing services for T Ltd. Clause 6.2 of the contract provides that T Ltd may cancel the

7. 2020-04-09-Plan-Changes-1-8-s-32-Evaluation-Report.pdf [pdf, 737 KB]

   ...regionally important infrastructure .................................................. 7 2.1.4. Discharge policies ................................................................................................. 8 2.2. Pre-notification consultation: Clause 34, Schedule 1 ......................................................... 8 2.3. Pre-notification consultation: Clause 3, Schedule 1 ........................................................... 9 2.4. Pre-notification consultation: Cla...

8. ENV-2016-AKL-000193 Kiwi Property Group Limited, Kiwi Property Holdings Limited & Sylvia Park Business Centre Limited v Auckland Council (Zoning and Precincts) [pdf, 2.6 MB]

   ...horizontal distance of 20m. b) 'Height area - sub-precinct B' i. Buildings must not exceed 27m in height. (3) Building platform - sub-precinct C a) Buildings must not exceed 22.5m in height. (4) Development that does not comply with clauses 1 to 3 above is a discretionary activity. Development in sub-precincts A and B not complying with standards 1336.6.4. to 1336.6.7 below is a restricted discretionary activity. 1336.6.4. Frontage control (1) Within those parts of...

9. [2009] NZEmpC WC 17A/09 Idea Services Ltd v Dickson [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...intended these questions to be answered easily, based on information readily available to both employer and employee at that time. [52] In this case, the key provisions to be understood and applied are several sections of the Minimum Wage Act and clause 4 of the Minimum Wage Order. The meaning of provisions contained in the Act must be ascertained in the context of the Act and in light of the perceived purpose of both that section and of the Act as a whole. As delegated legislation...

10. EZ & UC v HQ & LQ [2024] NZDT 424 (15 May 2024) [pdf, 171 KB]

    ...requires that all new building work, and s 40 which requires all building work to be consented, whether for a new building or alterations to an existing dwelling must comply with the Building Code (the BC). There are some exceptions to s17 and s40. Clause 1 of Schedule 1 BA lists building work which is exempt from the requirements of s 40, including: 2) Replacement of a building product or an assembly incorporated in or associated with a building, provided that— (a) a comparabl...