Search Results

1. Recorded Music NZ Limited v VOD052014-D-R-9242889 [2014] NZCOP 3 [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...$7.17 for the three alleged infringements, $200 for the application fee it has paid to the Tribunal, and an additional sum of $750. [12] The Tribunal notified the account holder on 7 July 2014 that a claim had been made against her and invited response by 21 July 2014. No response was received. Further correspondence was sent to the Applicant on 21 August 2014 inviting her to confirm if she wished to be heard or would like the matters to be dealt with on the papers. No response wa...

2. [2013] NZEmpC 183 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...proceedings WRC 17/04 and WRC 19/05 and whether or not the Defendant had filed with the Court a Statement of Defence in answer to the 4th Amended Statement of Claim dated 20 March 2013 filed by the Plaintiff in proceedings WRC 08/09. 4. In response to that telephone inquiry the Registrar advised me that no such Statements of Defence by the Defendant were able to be found on the Court files in respect of the relevant proceedings. 5. On Thursday 26 September 2013 I attended the R...

3. MK v PB LCRO 338/2012 (11 July 2014) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...following which Mr MK wrote to Mr PB.4 He pointed out that Mr PB’s debt to the firm had been overdue for a period in excess of 120 days and he was not prepared to undertake further work unless Mr PB provided security over his property. [10] In response, Mr PB referred to the letter from Mr FH dated 24 March 2011, and his response to that letter. He required Mr MK to adhere to what he understood the arrangement to be, namely that DE would be paid from the proceeds of a successful...

4. The Rakiura Tītī Committee v Davis (2017) 44 Te Waipounamu MB 86 (44 TWP 86) [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...the building following written notification from the RTC. (d) Removing Lisa ,Phillip's whare fur the reasons stated above. [3] , directed that these applieation~ he provided to Ms Davis and Ms Phillips. Doth re!ipondents. provided written responses, and judicial telcl:onferenees were subsequently held on I1 Pebrmuy 2016. Both matters were adjoumed to r deci .c; ions to issue. l4J The issue for determination is whethe.r the Maori Land Court has jurisdiction to grant injunctive...

5. Samuelu v Aasa [2014] NZIACDT 89 (16 September 2014) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...reach that conclusion alone; however, the incompetence finding in the other complaint does reinforce the need to protect consumers. Absence of significant mitigating factors [14] There is little or no mitigation, significantly Ms Aasa has not taken responsibility for her conduct and appears to continue to deny wrongdoing. Ms Aasa’s licence The principles [15] The authorities indicate it is a “last resort” to deprive a person of the ability to work as a member of their prof...

6. JF v RT LCRO 148 / 2011 (16 February 2012) [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...Review application [5] The Applicant considered that the substantive elements of the complaint had been ignored and minimised by the Standards Committee, and that there had been no rigorous enquiry. [6] Prior review: The file came under the responsibility of Deputy Legal Complaints Review Officer Owen Vaughan who, having assessed the file and the review application, considered that the complaints against the Practitioner were the same as those earlier dealt with by a Complaints C...

7. DL (Decision to Prosecute) LCRO 164/2016 (26 October 2016) [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...its own motion into matters involving Mr DL that appeared to indicate that there may have been misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct on his part. That investigation resulted in information being provided to the Committee by Mr RN who had assumed responsibility for a proceeding Mr DL had acted in and Ms VH who had been Mr DL’s instructing solicitor. Having considered that information, the Committee made the decision to lay charges against Mr DL which is the subject of this review....

8. E33 Sam Morgan - Coastal - EIC - Council [pdf, 712 KB]

   ...(Executive Summary); (b) A brief overview of the assessment of the coastal processes aspects of the Application contained in my Report (Assessment of the Application); (c) An overview of the outcome of the expert witness conferencing and a brief response to the Applicant’s evidence (Update Following Expert Witness Conferencing / Response to Applicant’s Evidence); (d) Comments on draft conditions and proposed mitigation (Conditions / Mitigation); and (e) Conclusions. 6. E...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 4 v Kennelly [2021] NZLCDT 8 (23 March 2021) [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...(even strike-off) is available where a charge of unsatisfactory conduct has been proved, the statutory rhetoric and case law indicates that misconduct is the category more grave than unsatisfactory. 3 [6] Mr Kennelly’s pervasive lack of response concerned the Standards Committee. That reflects in their submission that his disobedient failure should be characterised at the gravest level (misconduct) and should result in his being suspended for four months. [7] While we u...

10. RX v KL LCRO 31/2014 [pdf, 137 KB]

    ...[10] Miss RX says Mr KL was adjudicated bankrupt in August 2013, around 24 months after he had filed the complaint that is the subject of this review, and describes the possibility of her recovering unpaid fees from him as academic. Mr KL’s response [11] There has been no substantive response from Mr KL on review. Review Hearing [12] Miss RX attended a review hearing in Wellington on 7 November 2016. Although Ms IS was presented as Miss RX’s support person, and therefore not...