Ministry of Justice

Diligence and due care / client breached visa conditions by travelling offshore twice without their child while holding a guardian visitor visa / visa required that client live with their child in NZ / first trip involved a family emergency / adviser failed to lodge a separate variation application, instead relying on immigration officer’s failure to object while questioning departure / second trip was to gather evidence for residence visa application / adviser failed to inform client that INZ refused a temporary exemption to visa condition, or warn of consequences of departing in breach / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1 / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s442 / breach of cl1 found / adviser accepts he should have made formal variation application, and should have informed client of adverse decision and advised of risks and options / complaint upheld

Negligence / appeal against Registrar rejecting complaint / adviser in error in advising that residence application could be made offshore / corrected error before application deadline ended but complainant already departed NZ / adviser failed to satisfactorily apologise / Registrar rejected complaint on basis it disclosed trivial or inconsequential matters / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 442, s451, s54 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl 1 / not accepted error caused loss of the chance of residence / adviser discovered mistake after appellant left NZ but before his planned resignation from employment / appellant could have returned to NZ / Registrar has discretion in deciding to pursue complaints / disciplinary threshold not reached / adviser eventually gave correct advice before it was too late, and refunded fee and other costs / failure to satisfactorily apologise thoughtless rather than deliberate, could not justify formal disciplinary process / appeal rejected.

Sanctions decision / rubber stamping / adviser took over arrangement with offshore company to provide immigration services to Filipino workers / system encouraged clients to deal with unlicensed persons / adviser failed to engage with clients / work carried out by staff amounted to immigration advice / previous complaint upheld regarding same arrangement / lack of written agreement with client / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s50, s51 / rubber stamping a serious professional violation / adviser’s conduct not deliberate / adviser misunderstood scope of clerical work / adviser failed to engage with clients even after complaint had been made / misconduct continued after warning from INZ / adviser no longer licensed / financial penalties involve punishment but also deterrence / misconduct serious & systemic / adviser censured & ordered to pay $5000 penalty.

Sanctions decision / rubber stamping / adviser had no direct communication with clients / adviser engaged by offshore immigration consultancy which had been engaged by recruiting agency in another country / adviser mistakenly believed consultancy was his client / failure to have written agreement / Code of Conduct 2014, cl1, cl2e, cl3c, cl17, cl18 / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s50, s51 / delegation of immigration advice work to unlicensed people a serious infringement / not the most egregious example of rubber stamping as adviser still compiled application and supporting documentation / not a deliberate flouting of obligations / adviser accepted wrongdoing & put in place new practices to ensure obligations met / adviser censured & ordered to pay $3000 penalty.

Application / applicant claims property experienced differential settlement of foundations, interior and exterior cracking, and chimney damage due to earthquakes / referred for acceptance / Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019, section 8 / section 9 / section 13 / section 17 / section 46 / application must meet section 8 criteria / namely: at time of damage by qualifying earthquake  applicant was property owner and property insured in applicant’s name; there is a dispute between applicant and an insurance company or Earthquake Commission (EQC) regarding damage claim; building was either residence or at least fifty per cent of building was used as a residence; and one of parties to claim is either EQC or an insurance company / proceedings in another forum will render application ineligible unless proceedings transferred to Tribunal, as per section 17(c) / applicant party to insurance claim in High Court, appealed to Court of Appeal / higher court proceedings involved same …

Udovenko v Offshore Marine Services (NZ) Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 174 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge Christina Inglis, 19 September 2013] APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND STATEMENT OF CLAIM – Amendment sought to include alleged breach of s 4 Wages Protection Act – Objection of defendant – Whether breach a “matter” before the Authority pursuant to s 179 – WPA not specifically pleaded in Authority but issue as to whether plaintiff had been correctly paid was – Whether defendant prejudiced by application due to additional preparation of evidence – If defendant requires additional time adjournment can be granted – Leave granted.