Search Results

1. 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...

2. Body Corporate 85760 Acme Apartments [2011] NZWHT Auckland 4 [pdf, 86 KB]

   1 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 4 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6368: BODY CORPORATE 85760 - ACME APARTMENTS, 6 HALLEY LANE, WELLINGTON ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Body Corporate 85760 is the representative for a multi unit complex known as Acme Apartments at 6...

3. 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...

4. [2019] NZEmpC 146 Alkazaz v Asparona Ltd [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...outcome of the challenges.3 He has made such payment. [3] The grounds upon which Deloittes seek the order for security for costs are: (a) Mr Alkazaz does not live in New Zealand. (b) It is not clear where he lives. (c) Mr Alkazaz’s claims are without merit. (d) The amount of security sought is appropriate in view of the likely costs which would be awarded to Deloittes if successful in defending the challenges, the estimated duration of the trial of four days and the o...

5. Taylor v Corrections (Costs) [2022] NZHRRT 45 [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...HEARING: Heard on the papers DATE OF SUBSTANTIVE DECISION: 20 October 2020 DATE OF DECISION OF COSTS: 24 November 2022 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON COSTS1 [1] The Tribunal by decision in Taylor v Department of Corrections (Strike-Out Application) [2020] NZHRRT 42 struck out Mr Taylor’s claim. Mr Taylor had failed to file any evidence and the claim was struck out as an abuse of process. [2] On 6 November 2020 the Department of Corrections (Corrections) filed an applica...

6. 2023 October FV Provider Update [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...concern at FV.PNHQ@police.govt.nz as well as through their local police family violence co-ordinator. Oranga Tamariki must also be notified if there is perceived risk to a protected child. Concerns must be about new or escalating behaviour or information not contained in the original Protection Order or court referral documents. Victims should be encouraged to report all breaches to the Police, who may then decide to charge the respondent. Charges will be dealt with in the Criminal Co...

7. LP v VS & Ors LCRO 170 / 2011 (17 May 2012) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...Messrs VS and VP, apparently took over the Applicant’s former practice and employed him as a staff solicitor. Things did not work out and in 1991 the Applicant issued proceedings in the High Court at Wellington against Messrs VS and VP. The claims related to various allegations regarding money and chattels but failed except in relation to the wrongful detention of some chattels for which damages were awarded. [3] According to Mr VS (letter to NZLS, 3 March 2011): 2 “D...

8. [2020] NZIACDT 39 - IK v Tian (23 September 2020) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...New Zealand and had to leave, otherwise he was liable for deportation. [13] As Ms Tian did not inform the complainant of the outcome of the application or its immigration consequences, he continued to text or telephone her seeking news of the applications. She continued her practice of claiming not to know. [14] The complainant engaged his present counsel, Ms Mitchell, in January 2019. She contacted Immigration New Zealand and was informed of the decline of the complainant’s v...

9. OIA-117369.pdf [pdf, 398 KB]

   Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street DX SX10088 | Wellington T 04 918 8800 | F 04 918 8820 ContactUs@justice.govt.nz | www.justice.govt.nz 17 December 2024 Ref: OIA 117369 Tēnā koe Official Information Act request: Kaupapa Inquiry funding I refer to your email of 26 September 2024 to the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry), requesting under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), information relating to funding for Waitangi Tribunal kaupapa inquiries. On...

10. WO v KU [2021] NZDT 1676 (20 December 2021) [pdf, 201 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1676 APPLICANT WO RESPONDENT KU The Tribunal orders: WO’s claim against KU is dismissed. Reasons 1. WO and KU met in December 2018 and commenced a romantic relationship. On 28 March 2019 they started living together in a de facto relationship. Whilst living together, they shared their daily financial responsibilit...