Search Results

1. [2020] NZEmpC 138 Alkazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...be set aside. While this case concerns a subpoena under the High Court Rules 2016, the principles are applicable by analogy. See also Re Golightly [1974] 2 NZLR 297 (SC) at 301. 7 Auckland Council v George, above n 4, at [17]–[18]. permitted by the Court for good reason, largely to do with the broader administration of justice.8 [13] I directed that Mr AlKazaz set out in his notice of opposition what evidence he expected each of the seven witnesses to give and what re...

2. H v E [2016] NZIACDT 64 (30 September 2016) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...complainant, and filed a form with Immigration New Zealand noting he was now the adviser. [21] On 5 September 2015, Immigration New Zealand raised the issue that the complainant had incorrectly declared that she had never “been refused a visa/permit for any country including New Zealand”. Mr E responded with a statutory declaration and an email, saying that: [21.1] the former adviser made a mistake, and the complainant accepts responsibility; and [21.2] she made a mistake while...

3. [2021] NZIACDT 19 ZK v Registrar (20 August 2021) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...qualified for residence and “he didn’t mention any risks”. [60] On 11 June 2021, an investigator from the Authority rang the adviser and informed him that he had found instances of the unlicensed Ms X giving immigration advice, which was not permitted. There was a discussion about what was permitted. The investigator stated that this was a matter being brought to the adviser’s attention. Registrar’s decision [61] The Registrar wrote to the appellant on 11 June 2021...

4. LCRO 151/2016 and 157/2016 NS v TD and TD v NS (27 September 2018) [pdf, 325 KB]

   LCRO 151/2016 LCRO 157/2016 CONCERNING applications for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING A determination of the [Area] Standards Committee BETWEEN NS Applicant AND AND BETWEEN AND TD Respondent TD Applicant NS Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] These reviews ari

5. 17 July 2020 - Sidwell v Thames-Coromandel District Council [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...people coming to court. Entry continues to be limited to one person at a time at the doorway, maintaining physical distancing. Members of public (including whānau or other support person) whose presence is not required at court will not be permitted to enter unless granted permission from the presiding judge. Such permission should be sought in the first instance by e-mail to the registrar in advance (if granted this must be supplied to the Court Security Officer at the...

6. Morgan v ACC [2011] NZACA 2 [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...first, this ground is a question of fact and not law. In order for leave to be granted the appellant must show this is a mixed question of fact and law. In particular, it must be shown that there was no real evidence before the Appeal Authority to permit it to arrive at its determination. The appellant cannot discharge this burden. [27] Secondly, as the Appeal Authority held, the late review (brought 33 years out of 8 Determination [28] The application for leave to apply to th...

7. Mangu - Motatau 1B3E2 (2003) 98 Whangārei MB 152 (98 WH 152) [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...consequently, is not a fit and proper person to hold shares in the Land. Therefore, due to past conflict and continuing hostility between the Applicant and Mr Paewhenua on the one hand and Mr Mangu and his whanau on the other, it would not be appropriate to permit the gifting to proceed; (d) Mr Paewhenua, through his past actions, has not been a suitable custodian of T e Hawera homestead or the bridge that provides access to the house and consequently should not be provided with further...

8. [2016] NZSSAA 036 (16 May 2016) [pdf, 25 KB]

   ...in good faith; (d) the beneficiary changed his position believing he was entitled to receive the money and would not have to repay it; and (e) it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor’s financial circumstances, to permit recovery. [17] Pursuant to s 86(9B) of the Act, the term “error” includes: (a) the provision of incorrect information by an officer of the Ministry; (b) an erroneous act or omission occurring during an investigation of benefit en...

9. Jace Investments Limited and Anor v CAC304 & Anor [2015] NZREADT 86 [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...towards its legal costs. On behalf of the Authority, Ms Lawson-Bradshaw opposes that on the following bases, namely: [a] There is no jurisdiction to award costs against the Authority under the Real Estate Agents Act 2008; and [b] Even if it were permitted by the Act, a costs order against the Authority is not justified in the circumstances. Background [4] The appellant Maketu Estates Ltd complained to the Real Estate Agents Authority about the conduct of the second respondent lic...

10. TL v NM LCRO 34 / 2012 (18 January 2013) [pdf, 77 KB]

    ...is any wrongdoing in TL providing an agent with a copy of the Agreement document. [27] It should also be noted that the fact that a document or other information might be able to be obtained through another process (such as discovery) does not permit or excuse the release of that information. Indeed the footnote to Rule 8 makes it very clear that information may be confidential to a client notwithstanding that it may be otherwise available. 6 [28] There is some...