Search Results

1. Irving and D'Cunha v CAC and Brown [2017] NZREADT 42 [pdf, 333 KB]

   ...a “no man’s land” with the others not doing anything with it due to the contour of the land and distance from the others etc. As there is not much that can be done with the area 22b are looking after it/weeding bark etc”. The appellants claim that the failure to provide the email as sent was misleading and deceptive. They complained to the REAA. [3] The Complaints Assessment Committee determined to take no action on this complaint. In their decision of 10 October 2016 the...

2. [2015] NZSSAA 102 (18 December 2015) [pdf, 47 KB]

   ...take into account his new accommodation costs. As a result of this review, the appellant’s entitlement to Special Benefit was reduced from $94 per week to $79 per week. The appellant sought a review of decision. [7] Following the appellant’s request, a further review took place. From this, it was noted that a previous decision directed the inclusion of a basic telephone rental in the assessment of the appellant’s Special Benefit. An amount equivalent to the basic standard telep...

3. Murphy v CAC 10060 & Cussen [2012] NZREADT 52 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...properties were sole agencies with the Professionals. These cards suggested that she had buyers for the properties. [d] Finally Mr Murphy complained about a promotional brochure prepared by Ms Cussen headed “Pukekohe Market Report” which he claims misleadingly shows that Ms Cussen had sold each of the properties listed when at least two had been sold by the Professionals. [2] Ms Cussen did not appear, but evidence was given by Mr Michael Smith, the agent involved with the Ab...

4. [2022] NZREADT 12 - D v REAA 2106 (7 June 2022) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...with the result that a sum of $29,500.00 was refunded to his mother-in-law being the deposit for property 2. The Appellant submits he was not asked and did not give permission for the funds to be paid to his mother-in -law. [9] The Appellant claims that the Licensee managed the sale of the properties and received commission from the transaction. [10] The Licensee does not hold any records that relate to the matter complained about. 3 [11] Agency 1 is no longer an active c...

5. [2023] NZREADT 34 - IX v REAA (CAC2102) (8 December 2023) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...legally consented as a dwelling. She failed to advise the purchasers of the lack of recorded building permits, nor did she confirm the legality of the construction. Furthermore, the licensee failed to obtain expert evidence to support the vendor’s claim that the stables could be rented. [5] In the Committee’s decision on 9 September 2022, the licensee was found to have breached rr 5.1 (exercise skill and care), 6.4 (must not mislead) and 10.7 (obtain expert advice or disclose a...

6. E74 Dr Malcolm Patterson - EIC - Ngāti Whātua Orākei [pdf, 2 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV-2018-AKL-000078 I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) AND IN THE MATTER of direct referral of an application for resource consent for the necessary infrastructure and related activities associated with holding the America’s Cup in Auckland BETWEEN PANUKU DEVELOPMENT AUCKLAND LIMITED Applicant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DR MALCOLM PA...

7. ENVC Matiatia transcript 20141006 [pdf, 5.4 MB]

   ...Algies Bay or Snells, and there were other locations, and at one stage the Akoranga location I think was identified, so there was like a future urban zone equivalent, but they got dropped. And I might say, Sir, in Northland, having just done an application up there, Sir, for the Opua Marina Extension, there’s a plan change recently approved by the Minister that recognises the provision for marinas in mooring management zones. So here we have that problem, and it’s been around...

8. Williamson v Tangilanu [2012] NZIACDT 18 (8 May 2012) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...funds only for the purpose for which they were given, and did not deal with them as client funds in accordance with the Code. [4] Ms Tangilanu was also dishonest and misleading. She dishonestly told Mr Williamson (Mr Hakaumotu’s representative) an application had been lodged, and that a fee of $750 had been paid to Immigration New Zealand. In fact, she knew no such fee had been paid, as no application was lodged. She made the dishonest representation with the intention of misappropri...

9. Chand v Devi [2016] NZIACDT 4 (14 January 2016) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...that reflects the range of penalties. In Hakaoro v R [2014] NZCA 310 the Court of Appeal dealt with an appeal against a sentence of one year and eight months imprisonment on charges under the Act. Mr Hakaoro’s appeal was unsuccessful, as was his application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. 1 [12] Section 63 of the Act accordingly signals the gravity of a licensed immigration adviser allowing a person who cannot lawfully deliver professional services to do just that. The ke...

10. BB & AB v CC LCRO 134/2012 (26 August 2015) [pdf, 47 KB]

    LCRO 134/2012 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the[City] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN BB AND AB Applicants AND CC Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Ms BB has applied for a review of the [City] Standards Committee [X’s] decision to take no...