Search Results

1. SM v UU Ltd [2022] NZDT 159 (15 December 2022) [pdf, 159 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 159 APPLICANT SM RESPONDENT UU Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by telephone. Both parties appeared at the hearing. [2] The hearing was adjourned to allow SM to contact his insurer. SM has done so and reports that an insurance assessor has visited the propert...

2. Sharma v Manchanda [2018] NZIACDT 9 (23 March 2018) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...The application Mr Manchanda prepared was a failed lodgement with Immigration New Zealand (INZ), due to the absence of a current police certificate; [2.2] At that point, the complainant was in New Zealand unlawfully and had limited options to request a visa, as generally a person who is in New Zealand without a current visa cannot apply for a visa; and [2.3] When the complaint was made, the Registrar required that Mr Manchanda provide a copy of his file, but he did not provide f...

3. IJ v SO LCRO 76 / 2011 (15 February 2012) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...had been withdrawn, and the Court made appointments in favour of another person who had been proposed by the Applicant. [9] The Applicant was much offended by the allegations against him, particularly those involving financial matters. He claimed to have had incurred 3 significant legal expenses in respect of court applications which he noted were not successful in the event, contending that it was known to the Practitioner to have no prospect of success, adding that it...

4. ME v TK [2014] NZIACDT 39 (25 March 2014) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...25 March 2014 2 DECISION Introduction [1] The complainant was in New Zealand unlawfully and sought the adviser’s assistance to apply for a visa. [2] The adviser embarked on a course where he repeatedly filed unmeritorious requests, then made complaints on the same grounds. The responses from Immigration New Zealand and the Minister made it clear why his actions were inappropriate. He persisted. [3] He then lodged an appeal out of time; it could not be filed, and...

5. RT v MX LCRO 284 / 2011 (12 October 2012) [pdf, 76 KB]

   LCRO 284/2011 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Wellington Standards Committee 1 BETWEEN RT Applicant AND MX Respondent The names and indentifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] This is an application for review of a decision of the Wellington Standards Committee 1 which consi...

6. [2007] NZEmpC CC 20/07 O'Flynn v Southland DHB [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...further particulars in the Employment Court Regulations, rule 185 of the High Court Rules applies. The settled principles from authorities relating to that rule are that there must be sufficient particulars in a statement of claim to: • Inform the other party of the nature of the case as distinguished from the mode in which the case will be proved.1 • Prevent surprise. • Enable the preparation of evidence. • Limit and define the issues. [5] The difference between fact...

7. KS v T Ltd & H Ltd [2023] NZDT 595 (17 November 2023) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...an order against another company when the company he contracted with has been identified and ordered to pay. The application for rehearing is therefore declined. Referee Perfect Date: 17 November 2023 Page 2 of 2 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehe...

8. Ratahi v Parininihi Ki Waitotara Incorporation - Section 53 Block IX Opunake SD being part Ngati Kahumate Block comprised in CT D4/240 (2007) 195 Aotea MB 127 (195 AOT 127) [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...February 2006. Mr Lawrence counsel for a number of respondents wrote to Mr Bulfin on 9 November 2005 raising the issue of jurisdiction but received no reply he says. The matter was set down for hearing on 24 February 2006 but was adjourned at the request of Mrs Hughes QC, counsel for the applicants in the instant case (the respondents in the substantive proceeding) who said she needed time to prepare and to brief rebuttal evidence. The substantive hearing occurred on 16 June 2006 wh...

9. IO v AU LCRO 140 / 2011 (17 April 2012) [pdf, 61 KB]

   ...the issue was never discussed with him. He provided copies of letters supporting his recollection regarding the likelihood of success and the costs issue. 3 [9] Another complaint that the Practitioner had failed to release documents as requested by the Applicant was subsequently made. The Practitioner advised that he had never received a request for the documents but that they were available for release either by payment of his fee or payment of photocopying costs “in ac...

10. [2022] NZIACDT 7 - TA v Tian (27 April 2022) [pdf, 211 KB]

    ...REPRESENTATION: Registrar: Self-represented Complainant: R Sathiyanathan, counsel Adviser: No appearance 2 PRELIMINARY [1] The complainant is TA, who engaged the services of Ying Tian (aka Tina Qin). Ms Tian made numerous applications on behalf of the complainant which were unsuccessful. For a prolonged period, she pretended to be acting for him but was not actually undertaking any work on his behalf. As a result of her conduct, the complainant’s immigratio