Search Results

1. INZ (Greathead) v Ortiz [2019] NZIACDT 59 (29 August 2019) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...Zealand’s letter to the client by email on 27 July 2015. She asked him to call her. [17] On 30 July 2015, Ms Ortiz responded by email to Immigration New Zealand advising that the client’s dairy industry experience was false and seeking “an appeal on humanitarian considerations for the Waiver of the Character Requirements”. His real skill was as a barber. She blamed the staff of the recruiter he had earlier used. [18] From September 2015, the client was given a weekly $40...

2. BORA Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Bill [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...detention and treatment without a final determination of the court should be 14 days. [10] We raised this issue with officials from the Ministry of Health during the drafting of the Bill. 47. Turning to the question of arbitrariness, the Court of Appeal has stated that a detention is arbitrary when it is “capricious, unreasoned, without reasonable cause: if it is made without reference to an adequate determining principle or without following proper procedures.” [11] The length of de...

3. Morgan v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 20003) NZREADT 82 [pdf, 331 KB]

   ...anything, simply an employment issue between him, the defendant licensee, and PGG Wrightson, and does not amount to conduct that could warrant a disciplinary finding by us. [37] In Miller v REAA & Robinson [2013] NZREADT 14, we considered an appeal from a Complaints Assessment Committee decision to take no further action in respect of an allegation that a salesperson, after ending his employment relationship with an agency, removed files from that agency. The Committee initially c...

4. [2018] NZLCDT 22 Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Horsley [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...something is a different flavour, and whether the flavour has become a poison, can only be determined in a particular case by the familiar techniques of close analysis of the facts, and the commonsense application of judgment.” [28] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a practitioner cannot properly discharge his or her “duties to one whose interests are in opposition to those of another client”.3 2 Taylor v Schofield Peterson [1999]...

5. [2018] NZLCDT 4 Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Ellis [pdf, 398 KB]

   ...providing services to his clients (in terms of Chapter 5 of the Rules). [61] While the decision of Farrington v Rowe McBride & Partners26 is authority for the proposition that multiple engagements may not be “necessarily fatal”, the Court of Appeal made it very clear that “a solicitor’s loyalty to his client must be undivided”. [62] We accept Mr Collins’ further submission that the prohibition from acting for more than one client where there is a more than negligib...

6. LCRO 149/2020 WM v VE and DP (14 December 2021) [pdf, 361 KB]

   ...scope of review [53] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:11 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for th...

7. LCRO 120/2021 SB v KR (3 August 2022) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...Committee and I have not found it necessary to make any further enquiry of him. Nature and scope of review [29] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:19 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It...

8. Land Transport (Drug Driving) Amendment Bill [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...things, there are no statutory restraints of a person’s movements (accompanied by penalties for non-compliance).14 The existing breath-screening test (in relation to alcohol) is considered by the courts to amount to a detention.15 37. The Court of Appeal has held that a detention may be "arbitrary if it is capricious, unreasoned, without reasonable cause: if it is made without reference to an adequate determining principle or without following proper procedures”.16 38. Unde...

9. [2022] NZEnvC 233 Wellington Regional Council v Crosbie [pdf, 489 KB]

   ...Britton and Mr Garden for the Greater Wellington Regional Council. 3. As a result of the determination, the District Court made orders: (a) Prohibiting Mr Page and Ms Crosbie from commencing or continuing any activities that are not permitted by the Appeals Version of the Proposed Natural Resources Plan (pNRP) for the Wellington Region and the National Environmental Standards for Freshwater (and any subsequent versions of or successors to either document) within the wetlands at 127...

10. PSPLA - Form D: Application for a Company Licence [pdf, 819 KB]

    ...section 65 of the Land Transport Act 1998, or an earlier equivalent provision?  Yes  No Have you ever been ordered by a New Zealand court to be imprisoned following conviction for an offence and that conviction or order has not been quashed on appeal?  Yes  No In the last 7 years, have you ever been convicted by a New Zealand court of an offence under the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010 or Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974 for...