Search Results

1. Waitangi Tribunal theme K - Māori Land Councils and Māori Land Boards [pdf, 3.4 MB]

   ...Native lands; (ii) That the adjudication, management, and administration of the remnant of their lands be vested in controlling Councils, Boards, or Committees composed of representative Maoris. 'Though divided on many points' , they claimed, 'the tribes were unanimous' in requesting these changes.19 The petition itself, however, did not actually contain any specific reference to 'Councils, Boards, or Committees' ,20 while subsequent developments in the pe...

2. Sidhu v Tan [2017] NZIACDT 20 (26 September 2017) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...immigration affairs; [5.1.2] aspects of Mr Tan’s conduct were negligent; 3 [5.1.3] Mr Tan failed to comply with the Code of Conduct in relation to client engagement; and [5.1.4] Mr Tan failed to properly notify the outcome of failed applications for visas, and follow up regarding the consequences. This complaint – Sidhu v Tan [5.2] In Sidhu v Tan [2016] NZIACDT 62 the Tribunal upheld the complaint on the basis that Mr Tan: [5.2.1] did not complete the client...

3. Peng v Tan [2017] NZIACDT 19 Peng v Tan (26 September 2017) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...immigration affairs; [3.1.2] aspects of Mr Tan’s conduct were negligent; 3 [3.1.3] Mr Tan failed to comply with the Code of Conduct in relation to client engagement; and [3.1.4] Mr Tan failed to properly notify the outcome of failed applications for visas, and follow up regarding the consequences. Sidhu v Tan [3.2] In Sidhu v Tan [2016] NZIACDT 62 the Tribunal upheld the complaint on the basis that Mr Tan: [3.2.1] did not complete the client engagement process...

4. Ram v Tan [2017] NZIACDT 18 (26 September 2017) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...immigration affairs; [3.1.2] aspects of Mr Tan’s conduct were negligent; [3.1.3] Mr Tan failed to comply with the Code of Conduct in relation to client engagement; and 3 [3.1.4] Mr Tan failed to properly notify the outcome of failed applications for visas, and follow up regarding the consequences. Sidhu v Tan [3.2] In Sidhu v Tan [2016] NZIACDT 62 the Tribunal upheld the complaint on the basis that Mr Tan: [3.2.1] did not complete the client engagement process...

5. M D Cottle Family Trust & Ors v Barnett [2015] NZREADT 57 [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...licensee of the identity of a potential purchaser (Calder Stewart Construction) and an allegation of a conflict of interest by the licensee. The Committee found that, in the absence of any evidence provided which would substantiate the complainants’ claims that the licensee had a conflict of interest, it leaned towards accepting the licensee’s assurances and determined not to take this aspect of the complaint any further. [12] The Committee also dealt with several other new issues,...

6. [2018] NZEmpC 61 Butterfield v Alliance Group Ltd [pdf, 364 KB]

   ...investigation, and the failure to re-engage him in the meantime, was an unjustifiable disadvantage causing him loss of wages; (b) The decision not to re-employ him for the 2014-2015 season was an unjustifiable dismissal. [3] Mr Butterfield’s claim of unjustifiable disadvantage has evolved over time. The principal issues now are: • What personal grievances for unjustifiable disadvantage have been raised within time? • In relation to any grievance(s) raised within time,...

7. West v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational independence) [2024] NZACC 138 [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...April 2020, Ms West stood up from her chair in the garage and fell over onto the concrete floor, and hit her left knee and head, resulting in a centimetre-long cut above her right eye. [7] On 7 April 2020, Dr Adrian Pett, GP, filed an ACC injury claim form for Ms West for an open wound of the forehead and a left knee abrasion on 6 April 2020. The claim was automatically accepted that day. [8] On 24 April 2020, Dr Tariq Ali, GP referred Ms West to Concussion Services, with on...

8. Shepherd v Popata – Konoti A No5 South 2B2 (2013) 57 Taitokerau MB 47 (57 TTK 47) [pdf, 347 KB]

   ...DISTRICT Hearing: A20110002458 UNDER Section 25, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Konoti A No5 South 2B2 BETWEEN ROBIN LINDSEY SHEPHERD AND GENA SHEPHERD AND 1 November 2011 16 January 2012 18 March 2013 (Heard at Kaitaia) Applicants WAAKAPOPATAAND NORMAN POPATA Respondents Appearances: Mr Fountain for Robin and Gena Shepherd Ms Houra for Waaka and Norman Popata Judgment: 5 April2013 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER 57 Taitokerau MB 48 In...

9. 2017 NZSSAA 066 (22 November 2017) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...(a) Assistance provided to her was made recoverable when it should have been non-recoverable. (b) The appellant was not on the correct main benefit and/or supplementary assistance and/or incorrect income tests were applied. (c) Incorrect application of assistance in relation to a childcare grant. [5] We determined on 31 March 2017 that the payments relating to childcare assistance are not within the scope of this appeal. [6] Paragraphs 16(d) and (e) of the submissions relate t...

10. [2020] NZEmpC 166 New Zealand Resident Doctors Assoc v Auckland District Health Board [pdf, 336 KB]

    ...from one DHB in the Auckland region to another DHB in that region? (the first question)1 (b) What is the work an RMO “will be performing” for a DHB for the purposes of s 62(4) of the Act? (the second question)2 [2] In the statement of claim for the first question, a declaration was sought in the alternative that the DHBs to which the RMOs are rotated are obliged to comply with the terms and conditions of the RMOs’ employment that applied immediately before the rotation, t...