Search Results

1. FBN v Broadway [2019] NZIACDT 70 (7 October 2019) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...It was signed by Ms Broadway on 10 May 2017 and earlier by the employer on 3 May 2017. It did not specify the particular services to be provided. The total fee was $500. [6] On 1 June 2017, Ms Broadway issued an invoice to the complainant, care of the employer, which appears to have been paid by the employer on 8 June 2017. The complainant says she paid half of the fee by way of a deduction from her wages. [7] On 6 June 2017, the complainant paid Immigration New Zealand’s a...

2. Tong & Anor v CAC 20004 & Ors [2014] NZREADT 3 [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...maintains that the licensee has demonstrated a lack of remorse. He emphasises a personal toll suffered by the appellants, allegedly, as a result of the licensee’s actions. [9] In our said substantive decision herein [2013] NZREADT 90, we took care to detail our reasoning for our findings. The appellants seem to wish to challenge these to some degree when now dealing with penalty. That is not appropriate. Penalty Orders in general [10] It is well established that decisions of d...

3. Quin v REAA & Knaptondocx [2012] NZREADT 13 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...in the current case, gave evidence that they would not have. [34] Also, Harvey Corporation v Barker was a case involving s.43 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) which regime expressly requires loss to be shown. The FTA is important consumer protection legislation, and cases decided under it will often provide useful guidance in this Tribunal. However, it is always necessary to apply the wording of the particular statutory provisions in issue. The FTA has a general status but the...

4. BORA Search and Surveillance Bill [pdf, 334 KB]

   ...is present. For example, a search of the private areas of a house will necessitate greater justification than a search of its grounds.[7] 9. It is also noted that s 21 is to be applied without reference to the provision for justified limitation of protected rights in s 5 of the Bill of Rights Act: the Supreme Court has held that an unreasonable search or seizure is not open to justification.[8] 10. Third, the general requirement of a judicially issued warrant provides prior and indepe...

5. Property Ventures Limited v Parata - Ngarara West B3B (2006) 180 Aotea MB 15 (180 AOT 15) [pdf, 820 KB]

   ...the introduction by the legislature, of a first nght of refusal, strikes a balance between land-owner control or tino rangatiratanga on the one hand and hapu interest in a collective taonga toku iho on the other... in our view the removal of that protection should only be allowed where the application in some mature way outside the ordinary run of cases. That must be so, because to adopt any other approach would be to undermine the very careful balance between owners and the wider kin gro...

6. Vikashwarjeet and Devi v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 82 (15 September 2014) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...standards of conduct are maintained in the occupation concerned.” [11] When imposing sanctions those statutory purposes require consideration of at least four factors which may materially bear upon maintaining appropriate standards of conduct: [11.1] Protecting the public: Section 3 of the Act states “The purpose of this Act is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice ...” 3 [11.2] Demanding minimum standards of conduct: Dentice v...

7. Domb v REAA Registrar [2014] NZREADT 5 [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...Registrar receives information is not prejudicial; it is how the Registrar uses that information which is potentially prejudicial, if the Registrar acts unfairly or reaches a conclusion based on the information which is plainly wrong; and applicants are protected in such circumstances with a right of review to us, as with all decisions of the Registrar. [8] Mr Pratley’s basic submission is that there is nothing in that Act or Regulations which enables or empowers the respondent Regist...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 028 McIntyre v Canterbury Regional Council [pdf, 2.9 MB]

   ...the Resource Management Act 1991 , the Environment Court orders that D R Mcintyre and Waitaki Trustees Golden Acres Ltd are to pay Uointly and severally): (a) $32,500 to Mackenzie Guardians Incorporated; and (b) $37,000 to Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated. B: Under section 286 of the Resource Management Act 1991 , the District Court at Timaru is named as the Court this order may be filed in for enforcement purposes (if necessary). MciNTYRE &...

9. Manuel v Carroll - Lot 1 Deposited Plan 5004 Part Waimarama 3A1A1 (2020) 83 Takitimu MB 41(83 TKT 41) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...has damaged the land and has sought to improperly obtain title for himself. Mr Carroll claims that Ms Manuel’s approach is inconsistent with tikanga Māori and that he should be allowed to remain on the land for the rest of his life, given the care and protection he has provided for the whenua and the fact that he has put in place a sewerage and water system that will benefit all owners in the future. Mr Carroll would strongly prefer that further alternative dispute resolution be...

10. [2019] NZEnvC 165 SKP Incorporated v Auckland Council [pdf, 761 KB]

    ...might decide the case other than judicially and on its merits. Secondly, the test requires consideration of whether there is a logical and sufficient connection between those circumstances and that apprehension. 12. If, following the Judge's careful consideration and discussion with the Principal Judge, the Judge concerned is satisfied that there is a real possibility that he/she cannot act impartially, or is satisfied that a fair-minded, objective and fully informed observer mig...