Search Results

1. Muru v Te Aho - Maungatautari 4G Section IV Block [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 5 (2013 APPEAL 5) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...causing difficulties and interfering with sensitive negotiations. Mr Muru further submitted that the Court did not properly weigh Mr Te Aho’s conduct during these proceedings. He says Mr Te Aho’s threats and actions were inflammatory. [18] In response, Mr Te Aho’s counsel said it was unclear what owners and trustees’ rights were not considered. She submitted the Court has a role in maintaining relationships where whakapapa connections exist, but where litigation has bee...

2. 2017 NZSSAA 037 (17 July 2017) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...comes under the administrative branch of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, which is part of the Finnish Government. [13] The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health deals with planning, steering and implementing social and health policy. Its responsibilities include developing statutory insurance and drafting the legislation on both social and private insurance, thereby having an overarching responsibility for the Finnish social security scheme. Contention that the Finnish...

3. Auckland Standards Committee v Tupou 2010 NZLCDT 3 [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...[23] As to the proposed employer, the Tribunal was most impressed with the manner in which he gave evidence. He had clearly taken a considered and careful approach to the employment of Mr Tupou, his evidence was measured and indicated a degree of responsibility which gave the Tribunal considerable confidence. He described certain protocols and practices within his firm which we considered would benefit the practitioner enormously. After further consideration of the matter and sub...

4. BORA Health (Protection) Amendment Bill [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...of Rights Act because of the importance of the objective of identifying and managing public health risks, and because the threshold for exercising the measures in the Bill and the principles governing their use ensures this is the least restrictive response. In addition, we note that: • any medical examination must be conducted in accordance with current best practice and be the least invasive necessary to establish whether the individual has the infectious disease; and • a Distri...

5. [2016] NZSSAA 083 (29 August 2016) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...leave a message on his case manager’s phone. He assumed that the necessary adjustments were being made to his benefit. Mr XXXX said that he was not aware as to whether or not he was getting the full benefit payment or not because his wife was responsible for dealing with banking and benefit matters. On a recent occasion, his wife had drawn his attention to the fact that a payment received from the Ministry was not right. He said that he had given the Ministry a number to do a...

6. CL v SC LCRO 218/2015 (6 April 2016) [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...time-frames, and the consequences of failing to do so. He had the benefit of legal counsel. There is no affront to principles of fairness in the LCRO requiring review applications to be filed within the time-frames required by the Act. [42] Nor can responsibility for complying with those time-frames be avoided by the advancement of argument, unsupported by corroborative evidence, that an email was received hours after its dispatch. Uncritical acquiescence to that argument would s...

7. [2016] NZSSAA 035 (16 May 2016) [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...she and her husband have increased costs because they live in separate locations for part of the week. [9] The appellant said that the reason for entering into a formal commitment of marriage was that she and her husband prefer each other to be responsible for decisions regarding their health and wellbeing in the future, rather than their children. [10] The appellant submitted that her circumstances were no different the day before her marriage than the day after her marriage. She do...

8. DN v EO LCRO 263/2013 (31 August 2015) [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...possession only because of his involvement in NZLS. Standards Committee process [5] There is no evidence on the Standards Committee file of NZLS sending Mr DN’s complaint to Mr EO, of Mr EO being invited to respond, or of him providing any response in the course of the Committee’s process. [6] The Committee considered the complaint, which included Mr EO’s objection. It formed the view that Mr EO could have simplified matters by referring the Authority to decisions by the...

9. BN & MN v Hakaoro [2013] NZIACDT 64 (20 September 2013) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...apply for costs, I am satisfied that Mr Hakaoro should meet 100% of the costs incurred by the Tribunal and the complainant. Mr Hakaoro has not admitted any of the matters in respect of which there are adverse findings, or recognised his professional responsibilities. He characterised the complaint as false. In short, Mr Hakaoro maximised the cost and difficulty of addressing his conduct, which was dishonest and far from the standards he was required to observe. [49] Accordingly, there wi...

10. AH v ZS LCRO 90 / 2010 (10 February 2011) [pdf, 79 KB]

    ...relating to administration of the Trust, constitutes conduct to be considered in the context of a professional conduct complaint. [55] The Respondent has answered the queries of the Applicant in the manner he sees fit and as instructed. These responses are subject to scrutiny by the Court if he has failed in his duty as a trustee. It is not however the function of this office or the Standards Committee, to undertake the Court‟s role where a beneficiary remains dissatisfied wit...