Search Results

1. Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 47 [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...brief of evidence that attempted to challenge or provide further evidence on issues already determined in the substantive decision of February 2012. We noted that Mr Holyoake had previously been personally advised that the Tribunal would not permit additional witnesses to be called in relation to the remedial scope. [30] In his memorandum opposing the filing of this evidence, counsel for the Zagorskis acknowledged that he had not attempted to read all the material which r...

2. [2022] NZIACDT 1 - ZI v Wan (19 January 2022) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...on a visitor visa granted on the basis of guardianship of her younger son (her son), who was here on a student visa. This required her to remain in New Zealand while her son was here. An exemption to that condition was requested by Mr Wan to permit her to travel to China without him. It was declined by Immigration New Zealand (Immigration NZ), but Mr Wan did not tell her. She duly travelled to China, in breach of her visa. [2] A complaint was made to the Immigration Advisers Aut...

3. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Tee [2013] NZLCDT 34 [pdf, 43 KB]

   ...suppressed, save as may be required to facilitate Ms G pursuing her right to the refund of $10,000 from Mr Tee if required. [44] Ms G’s name shall be redacted from any published copy of this record and reasons for determination, save as permitted by s 240(3) Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. DATED at AUCKLAND this 9th day of August 2013 D J Mackenzie Chair NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL RECORD OF AND REASONS FOR DECISION ON PENALTY AND C...

4. Halesowen v Kelso LCRO 175-176 / 2009 (18 November 2009) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...including being involved in the progress of this review. I have observed that he is not in fact a complainant. However, Mr XX does have an interest in the progress of this matter and it is appropriate that this decision be provided to him. I am permitted to publish decisions to the extent that is necessary or desirable in the public interest by s 206(4) of the Act. Decision [33] The application for review is declined on the basis that there is no jurisdiction to consider it...

5. LCRO 1/2016 87/2016 and 88/2016 GV v Standards Committee [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...Committees not to deal with complaints themselves, but to lay charges against [Mr Orlov] before the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. [46] The principle followed by the Court was that “the court would not normally permit judicial review proceedings to be heard ahead of the statutory proceedings other than in exceptional cases”.11 The Court held it was not necessary in the interests of justice if the point in issue can be taken on appeal after the subst...

6. avie v CAC 20002 & Goradia [2014] NZREADT 53 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...relates to the use of advertising material for “promotional purposes”. The usual example of the clause being invoked in practice is where a property is advertised as being “sold” by the agency. That clause in the listing agreement does not permit continued marketing of the property as if it were still for sale when the vendor has taken the property off the market. [33] There was a period of at least 10 days over which the property continued to be marketed as being for sale con...

7. Russia Sanctions Bill [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...person from dealing with specified assets or services must be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act (because the Bill does not specifically provide for them not to be). Regulations providing for preservation, management, or disposal of assets as permitted by cl 10(4) would also need to be consistent with the Bill of Rights Act. 40. For completeness, we note that compelling information may also limit freedom of expression. However, we consider any limit on freedom of expression to...

8. LCRO Annual Report 2022 [pdf, 318 KB]

   ...with an increased number of jurisdiction challenges. A number of these applications sought leave to file applications out of time. The foundation for a number of these jurisdictional challenges, was argument that COVID-19 management legislation permitted departure from the LCRO’s strict approach of refusing to accept applications that had been filed out of time. In a number of jurisdiction cases, the nature and multiplicity of the issues raised, required the LCRO to deliver...

9. Hill v PTW Holdings Ltd - 587-591 Great South Road (2023) 262 Taitokerau MB 140 (262 TTK 140) [pdf, 275 KB]

   ...liquidator’s consent to the proceeding or the High Court makes orders making provision for those proceedings. [4] They confirm that the liquidators have not consented to these proceedings being brought and there have been no High Court orders permitting the proceedings to be taken in relation to the company’s property. [5] The applicants have then asked the Court to “separate” the application into five applications so that their applications relate not only to the land held...

10. Zhang v The First Org Ltd (Strike Out) [2024] NZHRRT 11 [pdf, 163 KB]

    ...how large that serving should be. For Mr Zhang to claim that the non- discrimination right is engaged by this question trivialises the right’s importance. [25] The claim’s overreach is demonstrated by the fact that, if successful, it would permit members of other groups such as Pacific people and Māori who are more likely to be on a lower income than the national average,11 or women who are more likely to be on a 10 Child Poverty Action Group v Attorney-General HC Wellington...