Search Results

1. LCRO 59/2016 and 61/2016 DE and QV v Standards Committee (27 September 2018) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...Committee that a valuation as required by para 8 sch 4 to the Rules was not required on renewal of a loan and that was addressed by the Committee in its decision. In the applications for review the lawyers included the same issue: “LCN Rules do permit differentiation between initial loans and later renewals”. [20] However, Mr QV advised in his written and oral submissions for the review hearing that the “position was not maintained in this review”. [21] It seems therefore...

2. LCRO 70/2020 FL v TP (8 October 2020) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...review conducted by Review Officers properly falls within the definition of work carried out by a tribunal. [15] That inquiry is necessary in order to establish whether the discretion allowed under sch 2 of the Epidemic Preparedness Act 2006 which permits courts or tribunals to extend the timeframe for filing applications, ameliorates the strict approach Review Officers have historically adopted when considering review applications that have been filed out of time. [16] The functi...

3. The Chief Executive of Land Information New Zealand v Taare - Awapuni 1F3 (2016) 60 Tairawhiti MB 90 (60 TRW 90) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...Executive of LINZ in assessing what would be “fair consideration” in relation to Awapuni 1F3. [31] The Chief Executive of LINZ has a statutory role under s 41 of the Public Works Act 1981 (PWA) to comply with s 40 of that Act and s 40(2)(d) permits a sale by the Chief Executive “at any lesser price”. The respondents remain committed to further discussions with both Airways and LINZ in relation to Awapuni 1F3. [32] For these reasons, the respondents request that the Court,...

4. LCDT Annual Report 2023 [pdf, 471 KB]

   ...(of a procedural nature) can be considered by the Chair alone, and some of which require the convening of the full, or reduced number Tribunal. A reduced quorum, consisting of three members (Chair, one lay member and one lawyer member), is permitted under the Act to consider applications for Interim Suppression of Name and for Interim Suspension Orders. These provisions allow speedier consideration of such applications at a considerably reduced cost. At times, in order to...

5. [2023] NZEmpC 224 Medina Trading Ltd T/A Hotel Debrett v Hunter [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...statement of claim has been filed, directions can be made, and steps taken by Ms Hunter, about the nature and scope of the hearing. [41] Alternatively, if the parties wish for the matter to be heard as a de novo challenge, the Court can make directions permitting that under s 182(3) of the Act, but the entire matter will then be before the Court. Costs [42] Costs are reserved. In the event the parties are unable to agree on costs, Ms Hunter will have 14 days from the date of this...

6. Gupta v Dhar [2016] NZIACDT 65 (4 October 2016) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...potentially provided them intending that Immigration New Zealand would believe they related to the correct position of employment. [7.4] In respect of the residence application, the application said the complainant had never been refused a visa or permit. In fact, since lodging the EOI Immigration New Zealand twice declined work visa applications. Accordingly, the information in the application was wrong, and Mr Dhar knew or ought to have known that. [7.5] Accordingly, Mr Dhar all...

7. Pue v Kīngi - Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Whenua Tōpu Trust (2015) 335 Aotea MB 1 (335 AOT 1) [pdf, 389 KB]

   ...made on 22 December 2005 in Chambers reducing the number of trustees by two and appointing, together with the remaining trustees, the persons nominated at the general meeting as trustees by way of replacement. I also indicated that any party was permitted to apply for a rehearing within 28 days. 19 Application for enforcement of obligations of trust [17] On 2 February 2006 Rata Pue filed an application for a rehearing regarding the appointment of replacement trustees. 20...

8. Horne v Anaru - Pukehina M Sec. 2A, M Section 2B No.2 and M2D Aggregated (2015) 123 Waiariki MB 40 (123 WAR 40) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...The first is reference to nominations for trustees coming from “whānau”. This broadening of the ability to move and second resolutions, which is effectively what is done when a nomination is put forward, may then lead to the practice of permitting non-owners to vote at a general meeting. In my experience, owners have long decried attempts by non-owners to attend, speak at, and move resolutions in general meetings, let alone purporting to vote. [29] There are many examples...

9. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v Telecom NZ 3760 [2013] NZCOP 14 [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...categories of documents is relevant in this case. To be sure, s 122L(3), which provides that “[t]he Tribunal may determine its own procedure for determining an application that is dealt with on the 5 papers, subject to any regulations”, permits some degree of procedural flexibility. Even so, in the circumstances of this case, s 122L(3) does not assist the account holder. If the letter is a challenge notice, it was filed out of time. The Tribunal should not consider a chall...

10. Robinson v CAC 20006 & Wagner [2014] NZREADT 57 [pdf, 62 KB]

    ...about Mr Rawnsley providing the complainant with authority to sign a listing agreement on his behalf; nor could that be inferred. The agency could not list and market the property on the signature of one owner alone; the mediation agreement did not permit this. Nor is this otherwise permissible. An agent must have the written authority of all owners in order to market and sell a property. [42] In the circumstances of this case, it is submitted for the Authority that the licensee sh...