Search Results

1. Grindle v CAC 20005 & Davis [2014] NZREADT 84 [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...very clear to Ms Davis that it was important to ensure that the settlement period for the sale of her property also matched the settlement period for her purchase. 3 [11] Part of the Committee’s reasoning is as follows: “3.6 We have carefully reviewed the responses from both licensees. While we can understand that the complainant was in a competitive multiple offer situation when she made her offer to purchase the property we do find it unusual that a 10 day settlement c...

2. [2016] NZEmpC 67 Bay of Plenty DHB v Rahiri [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...facts but need to augment those also by factual findings made by the Authority or after considering evidence given at this hearing, applying to the status question now before the Court. [14] The defendant was employed by the plaintiff as a Health Care Assistant (HCA) on 9 September 2013. Ms Rahiri worked for an in-house Nursing Bureau that the DHB had set up to provide casual staff as and when required, at least for its Tauranga Hospital. As with many people employed in most DHBs,...

3. IX v AQ & AP LCRO 57 / 2012 (23 May 2012) [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...from this review is that AEH admit their mistakes, apologise, and refund all moneys paid by him and his family including payments made to consultants. He considers that he and his family have been denied access to natural 5 justice and the protection afforded by the New Zealand Bill of Rights by the actions of AEH. Because of this he requests that this Office advise the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General of the facts of this case so that they may consider revisitin...

4. LCRO 141/2013 TM v DC (7 June 2017) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...in connection with the proposed purchase of a business in [city] known as [Company] (the business). The business comprised [certain facilities]. [3] Mr DC had been recommended to Mr TM as having expertise in the sale and purchase of healthcare facilities. He also had personal experience in the ownership of associated facilities due to the fact that his family trust owned a one-half share in a [service facility] in [city]. 2 [4] Negotiations for the purchase of the busine...

5. L v Kim [2015] NZIACDT 108 (22 December 2015) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...[16.7] Costs. [17] However, the Tribunal has taken a very flexible approach where complaints arise out of a licensed immigration adviser’s lack of awareness, and provided opportunities for restoration to practising. None-the-less, the consumer protection afforded by the Act is always an important factor. [18] In this case, I approach the matter on the basis Ms Kim does not comprehend the issues. Serious as the matters are, they appear to result from ignorance and gross incompetence r...

6. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v TCLE-A-T6518151 [2013] NZCOP 12 [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...Tribunal also has a discretion to decline to make orders if to do so would be manifestly unjust to the account holder. Would the making of orders be manifestly unjust? [18] The Tribunal has some sympathy with the Respondent’s position, and has given careful consideration to whether it would be manifestly unjust to make orders against him in this case. It notes the following: The file sharing was undertaken by a visitor to the household (the Respondent’s son’s girlfriend), with...

7. Auckland Standards Committee v Holland [2014] NZLCDT 13 [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...benefit (at least in the short term) at the expense of his clients, that he is realistic enough to accept that no penalty short of strike-off would suffice to meet the purposes stated above. [15] Mr Holland has breached the rules which form the protective framework for the handling of client monies. He has stolen from his clients and has no means of repaying them, at least in the short term. [16] The Tribunal finds unanimously that he must be struck from the Roll of Barristers...

8. [2015] NZSSAA 105 (24 December 2015) [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...in the Chief Executive’s stead. [11] This is reinforced by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which provides that wherever a public authority has a power to make a determination in respect of a person’s rights, obligations or interests protected by law, that Authority must apply the rules of natural justice. [12] The appellant is a client of the Ministry of Social Development’s Remote Client Unit. The Authority has been advised that this unit services clients who, due to e...

9. CAC306 v Murphy & Anor [2015] NZREADT 88 [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...[24] Professional standards must be maintained. The aspects of deterrence and denunciation must be taken into account. It is settled law that a penalty in a professional disciplinary case is primarily about the maintenance of standards and the protection of the public, but there can be an element of punishment. Disciplinary proceedings inevitably involve issues of deterrence, and penalties are designed in part to deter both the offender and others in the profession from offending in a...

10. BORA Prisoners' and Victims' Claims Bill [pdf, 194 KB]

    ...discretion to admit other evidence, whether or not admissible in a court (cl. 55). 16. Of these, the first and fourth of these provisions are discretionary powers of the Tribunal and so, in order to be valid, must be exercised in accordance with BORA protections, including s 27(1): see Drew v Attorney-General [2002] 1 NZLR 58, 72. It would follow that, where fairness required an oral hearing or the rejection of particular evidence, s 27(1) would require the Tribunal to do so. 17. The...