Search Results

1. ZA v YB LCRO 135/2014 Recusal (31 August 2016) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...identifying the LCRO file number, parties’ names and date of any review hearing attended by Mr [ZA]. Any such application was to be served on the other party to the review application, and that party would have 10 working days to respond. Any response would be served on Mr [ZA], who was to have five days in which to file a reply. The LCRO noted that “response and reply are not an opportunity to raise fresh issues”. With respect to any more general request for recusal the LCRO dir...

2. Evidential Overview for Christchurch Masjid attacks [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   ...public. 5.4 The Police Special Tactics Group provide assistance with escalating Armed Offender situations needing greater tactical resources or situations that are beyond the capability or capacity of the Armed Offender’s Squad. They are also responsible for the tactical intervention in incidents involving terrorism, hostage rescue and other duties requiring the Special Tactics Group’s tactical skills and expertise. To become a member of the Special Tactics Group, you first must b...

3. LCRO 1/2018 SY v LT and LN (17 December 2019) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...complication with TY’s estate due to the intestacy of one of the legacies. However, they said that after nine years they were no 5 further ahead nor any better informed. They noted that Mr SY had not responded to their requests for information. Response [40] In his letter to the Complaints Service dated 11 August 2017, Mr SY said the following: (a) As executor he was reluctant to distribute the partial intestacy in accordance with counsel’s opinion and considered that...

4. Director of Proceedings v N [2019] NZHRRT 38 [pdf, 953 KB]

   ...aggrieved person's LMC obstetrician. ANTENATAL CARE 8. Throughout her pregnancy the aggrieved person's antenatal care was shared between her LMC obstetrician and her General Practitioner ("GP"). The LMC obstetrician had overall responsibility for the aggrieved person's care. The LMC obstetrician did not document the shared care arrangement between himself and the aggrieved person's GP. 9. The aggrieved person was booked to deliver at the hospital on...

5. LCRO 261/2016 TJ v DM and ZP (26 September 2019) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...respondents, Mr DM and Ms ZP (the lawyers). Background [2] Ms TJ separated from her husband around August 2011. [3] In September 2011 Ms TJ instructed [Law Firm 1] to act for her on relationship property matters. [4] Mr DM initially had responsibility for the carriage of the file but was subsequently assisted by Ms ZP. [5] Ms TJ executed a letter of engagement, confirming her instructions to [Law Firm 1] to act on her behalf. [6] The parties had resided overseas with thei...

6. [2022] NZIACDT 29 - EQ v McCarthy (19 December 2022) [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...written approval, if not a change to the service specified in the contract, for each and every immigration application made.23 The contract (25 November 2019) was more than 18 months before the second expression was filed. It was Mr McCarthy’s responsibility to ensure he had instructions to proceed, not the complainant’s responsibility to instruct him not to proceed (in respect of an application she did not know was to be made) and presumably terminate his services. [108] M...

7. [2022] NZREADT 16 - CAC 2102 v He & An (15 August 2022) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...stated that he acted as the listing agent, the Purchasers were Mr An’s buyers, and he simply helped out Mr An with the negotiations because Mrs Sharma was more comfortable dealing with him. He said that Mr An was the selling agent and therefore responsible for obtaining the Vendors’ signature/initials. [33] Mr He states that he never intended for the Vendors’ existing signatures and initials on the backup ASP to represent the acceptance of the backup offer. He said he never...

8. Appendix-12_Sarah-Newall_s87F_198D-Report_Site-Contamination_28-April-2023.pdf [pdf, 313 KB]

   ...Assessment of Effects (Volume II Part G); (f) Volume II Part I: Statutory Assessment (Volume II Part I); (g) Volume II Appendix 1: Rule Assessment (Volume II Appendix 1); (h) Volume II Appendix 5: Draft Conditions (Volume II Appendix 5); (i) Response to request for additional information pursuant to section 92 of the Resource Management Act 1991 – HDC and KCDC (the DC s92 response); and (j) Response to request for additional information pursuant to section 92 of the Resource...

9. [2023] NZEmpC 191 Appleton v Tasman Cargo Airlines Pty Ltd [pdf, 311 KB]

   ...use of a torch when conducting an external inspection of an aircraft was prescribed. The discussion became quite heated after Mr Appleton challenged the form completed by Captain Whiteside. The loud volume and intensity of Captain Whiteside’s responses caused the HR representative to interject in the discussion and the meeting ended up being shorter and less useful than hoped. While there is some dispute over what was covered at this meeting, Tasman Cargo had an expectat...

10. [2024] NZIACDT 22 – QN v Nandan (29 August 2024) [pdf, 229 KB]

    ...entering the immigration relationship, she was obliged to turn her mind to such possibilities. She should have thought through how the roles could conflict once she accepted the two relationships (putting to one side the friendship). It was her responsibility to do so, not that of the complainant. [103] The Tribunal does not, respectfully, accept Mr Waalkens’ submission that no conflict of interest arises here. Ms Nandan had a personal interest in both relationships and had...