Search Results

Search results for University of Auckland.

1643 items matching your search terms

  1. [2020] NZREADT 27 – Deng v Real Estate Agents Authority (25 June 2020) [pdf, 214 KB]

    ...Deng has also appealed against the Committee’s decision, issued on 27 November 2019, in which it made penalty orders (“the penalty decision”). Background [2] Mr Deng is a licensed salesperson, engaged at Barfoot & Thompson Ltd in Auckland (“the Agency”). He was the listing agent for two adjacent properties, which we will refer to as “No. 26” and “No. 28”. The property at No. 28 was to be sold by mortgagee sale. The Agency had a sole agency for both propert...

  2. EMPC Effective representation in the Employment Court - perspective from the bench [pdf, 300 KB]

    EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT A PERSPECTIVE FROM THE BENCH By Judge Christina Inglis1 1 Judge of the Employment Court, Auckland. 2 Introduction Cases in the Employment Court take many forms. They range from complex arguments about refined legal points to factual disputes. Effective representatives in the Employment Court tend to share a number of common attributes, in...

  3. Five complainants v Kumar [2015] NZIACDT 82 (17 August 2015) [pdf, 170 KB]

    ...Complainants AND Mayank Kumar Adviser THE NAMES OF THE COMPLAINANTS ARE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED DECISION ON AN APPLICATION REGARDING REPRESENTATION REPRESENTATION: Registrar: Mr A Dumbleton, lawyer, MBIE, Auckland. Complainants: Unrepresented on this issue. Adviser: Ms J Shadforth, agent, Immigration Law Advocates, Rangiora. Date Issued: 17 August 2015 2 DECISION The issue [1] Mr Kumar faces five complain...

  4. Varela v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 30 (19 March 2014) [pdf, 163 KB]

    ...Sanchez Varela Complainant AND Artika Archina Devi Adviser DECISION REPRESENTATION: Registrar: In person. Complainant: In person. Adviser: S Singh, Singhs Barristers & Solicitors, Auckland. Date Issued: 19 March 2014 2 DECISION Preliminary [1] This complainant says he went to the adviser’s practice and dealt only with unlicensed persons. He says he never met the adviser. It is a crimina...

  5. Pope v Human Rights Commission (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 88 KB]

    ...Reference No. HRRT 015/2013 UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 BETWEEN DARRYL WARD POPE PLAINTIFF AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION FIRST DEFENDANT AND HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER SECOND DEFENDANT AND OMBUDSMAN THIRD DEFENDANT AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms GJ Goodwin, Member Mr BK Neeson, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr M Ward, agent for plaintiff Ms S Bell for first defendant Ms K Elkin for second defendant Dame Beverley Wakem DNZM, CBE...

  6. Vikashwarjeet v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 27 (17 March 2014) [pdf, 102 KB]

    ...Avikshni Devi Complainants AND Artika Archina Devi Adviser DECISION REPRESENTATION: Registrar: In person. Complainants: In person. Adviser: S Singh, Singhs Barristers & Solicitors, Auckland. Date Issued: 17 March 2014 2 DECISION Preliminary [1] The complainants are a couple, who say they engaged the adviser to assist with a visa for the parents of one of them. They say they told the adv...

  7. Chand v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 25 (14 March 2014) [pdf, 138 KB]

    ...Ranjit Chand Complainant AND Artika Archina Devi Adviser DECISION REPRESENTATION: Registrar: In person. Complainant: In person. Adviser: S Singh, Singhs Barristers & Solicitors, Auckland. Date Issued: 14 March 2014 2 DECISION Introduction [1] The Registrar filed a Statement of Complaint; the central issue is an allegation that the adviser dishonestly made a claim the complainant qualifi...

  8. Apostolakis v Attorney-General No. 2 (Strike-Out Application) [2017] NZHRRT 53 [pdf, 201 KB]

    ...dismiss trivial, etc, proceedings The Tribunal may at any time dismiss any proceedings brought under section 92B or section 92E if it is satisfied that they are trivial, frivolous, or vexatious or are not brought in good faith. [5] In Mackrell v Universal College of Learning HC Palmerston North CIV-2005-485-802, 17 August 2005, Wild J held that this provision confers on the Tribunal a wide discretionary power to strike out or dismiss a proceeding brought before it: [45] Subject to obse...

  10. [2016] NZEmpC 123 Henderson v Nelson Marlborough District Health Board [pdf, 229 KB]

    ...constructively dismissed? [41] The parties concentrated their submissions on what happened at the meetings of 22 August 2014 and 11 September 2014, and the consequences of what happened. There is no disagreement about the legal test to apply. [42] In Auckland Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (New Zealand) Ltd the Court of Appeal described three non-exhaustive situations where constructive dismissal may occur: 3 1. An employer gives an employee an option of resigning or be...