Search Results

1. LAT - Practice note - 2011 [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...[9.1] Every decision of the Tribunal must be given in writing and contain a brief summary of the reasons (s 56(2)). It will be delivered to the applicant through his or her representative (if any) and to the Commissioner. 10. PUBLICATION [10.1] Decisions of the Tribunal are normally publicly available unless the Chair determines otherwise, either of his or her own volition or on application by any party, in relation to the whole or any part of a decision (s 58). Decisions pu...

2. LCRO 68/2018 TY v HG (29 November 2019) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...[61] He concluded by submitting that (beyond being an exhibition of incompetence) Mr HG’s conduct had been unsatisfactory because it was: (a) in breach of s 12(b) of the Act – unbecoming and unprofessional conduct; and (b) in breach of r 10.1 of the Rules – treating other lawyers with respect and courtesy – contrary to s 12(c) of the Act. Mr HG’s response to the review application [62] Coming now to Mr HG’s response to the review application, I reset the scene by rep...

3. Kanta v Prakash [2014] NZIACDT 64 (05 May 2014) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...complaint on wider grounds, but the Registrar identified material that supports the following grounds of complaint. [10] The adviser breached the Licensed Immigration Advisers Code of Conduct 2008 and 2010 (both identically worded), in that he: [10.1] Failed to comply with the Code’s requirement that a professional engagement must be established with a written agreement containing a full description of services (clause 1.5(a), (b), (d) and (e)); [10.2] Breached the Code’s require...

4. LCRO 177/2021 FA v LL (14 March 2022) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...occupation, in breach of r 2.3 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules); and (b) whether when acting in a professional capacity, Ms LL failed to treat Ms FA with respect and courtesy, in breach of r 10.1 of the Rules. [23] The notice said that the Committee would consider “the above issues … individually and collectively.” Submissions [24] Both parties provided extensive submissions to the Committee in response to its Not...

5. Keston v Redwood Corporation Ltd (Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings) [2022] NZHRRT 50 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...2022 and requested that the specified period for commencing proceedings in s 98(3) be extended by a week under s 98(8). [13] Section 98(8) provides that the Chairperson (which includes a Deputy Chairperson pursuant to Human Rights Act 1993, s 101A) may agree to extend any time period specified in subsections (2)-(7) for commencing proceedings if the Chairperson is satisfied that “exceptional circumstances prevented proceedings from being commenced within the specified period.”...

6. [2024] NZEnvC 074 GI Finlay Trustees Ltd v Western Bay of Plenty District Council [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...have now come to be applied not just in determining whether higher than normal costs should be awarded but in determining whether costs should be awarded at all and, if so, at what level.2 1 Goodwin v Wellington City Council [2021] NZEnvC 101 at [41]. 2 Development Finance Corporation of New Zealand Ltd v Bielby [1991] 1 NZLR 587 (HC). 5 [12] These factors now overlap with paragraph 10.7(j) of the Environment Court Practice Note which provides as follows: In considerin...

7. Wakelin and Anor as Trustees for the Get In & Walk Trust v Taupo Texture Coatings Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 43 [pdf, 206 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-101-000023 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 43 BETWEEN GRANT D WAKELIN AND PATRICIA J WAKELIN AND LPT TRUSTEES NO.30 LIMITED as Trustees for the GET IN & WALK TRUST Claimants AND TAUPO TEXTURE COATINGS LIMITED First Respondent AND MARSHALL WATERPROOFING NZ/AUS LIMITED Second Respondent AND TODD ELLIOTT BUILDERS LIMITED Third Respondent AND TAUPO DISTRICT COUNCIL (Removed) Fourth Respondent A...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 72 Lawton v Steel Pencil Holdings Ltd [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...Regulations 2000. While the financial component was the 4 Morgan v Whanganui College Board of Trustees [2014] NZCA 340, [2014] 3 NZLR 713, [2014] ERNZ 80 at [11]. 5 Moore v McNabb (2005) 18 PRNZ 127 at [56]. 6 Employment Relations Act 2000, ss 101(ab), 143(b). 7 Martinsen, above n 3, at [16]. same, a Calderbank offer can be (and often is) made with a financial component that is identical to a previous without prejudice offer.8 [16] The new elements mean the o...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 178 UXK v Talent Propeller Ltd [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...made by the Employment Relations Authority that certain witness summonses should be issued.2 My judgment also dealt with an application for non-publication of UXK’s name and identifying details. 1 UXK v Talent Propeller Ltd [2022] NZEmpC 101. 2 The determination was in the form of two documents described as “Minutes”. [2] I reserved costs. I recorded the Court had been told UXK was legally aided for the purposes of the challenge. The parties were invited to d...

10. IPT Practice Note 5 Publication of decisions [pdf, 104 KB]

    ...Tribunal’s own motion – (clause 20(2), Schedule 2). [9.3] Beyond these limited powers of recall, a decision by the Tribunal is final once notified to the appellant or affected person – (clause 17(6), Schedule 2). 10. DATABASE OF DECISIONS [10.1] In accordance with the requirement that it must publish its decisions (clause 19(1), Schedule 2), the Tribunal maintains three databases (refugee and protection, residence and deportation), at www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/ipt/deci...