Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. [2021] NZEnvC 120 Brookby Quarries Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.8 MB]

   ...parties had narrowed somewhat, and recorded issues agreed and points of disagreement. [12] Except for one minor cross-reference in the assessment criterion E15.8.2(3) (i.e. the cross-reference to Policy D9.3(8A)) the parties agreed about the form and content of both the matters of discretion (E15.8.1(3)) and the assessment criteria (E15.8.2 (3)) for the restricted discretionary activity. [13] The key areas of disagreement related to the need for a separate objective and policy spe...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 207 Nee Nee v C3 Ltd [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...costs in the event that agreement could not be reached. [7] This judgment deals with the remaining challenge by Mr Nathan. Of necessity, reference will be made to matters also relating to Mr Nee Nee and his challenge. It also deals with the application now formally made by the defendant for an award of costs against Mr Nee Nee. 1 [2012] NZERA Auckland 457. Pleadings [8] Mr Nathan claims that his dismissal was unjus...

5. Complaints Assessment Committee 304 v Foreman [2017] NZREADT 3 [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...he brushed these posts with a wire brush, gently sanded them to remove any loose paint and then painted over the existing paint with Resene Rust Arrest Red Oxide to prevent rust. He said he did not see at any time bogged sections (as Mr Parker claims), rust or any other problems with these posts and says if he had done he would have immediately had any issue investigated.  In 2005 to 2006 Mr Harman was engaged to construct a new garage and storeroom. The flat roof of the old g...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 150 McConnell v Board of Trustees of Mt Roskill Grammar School [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...Richard Harrison, counsel for defendant Judgment: 9 August 2013 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS [1] This challenge relates to a decision of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) granting the defendant’s application for certain paragraphs of the plaintiff’s proposed evidence to be withdrawn and resubmitted prior to an investigation meeting. [2] The background to the challenge, which is pursued on a non de novo basis, is as follows. [3]...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. [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,...

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...