Overcharged parents $220,000 Dotcom appeal bid rejected by court

AUCKLAND: A teacher and manager of a central Auckland preschool has lost her registration and been fined for overcharging parents and caregivers more than $220,000 in 12 months.

The New Zealand Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal called the teacher’s actions an ‘‘extremely clearcut example of serious misconduct’’.

Rebecca Brindle is the owner, sole manager and joint shareholder, with her husband, of Kowhai Montessori Preschool in Orakei.

The Commerce Commission began an inquiry into the school after a parent complained about the fees being set.

Brindle was responsible for setting child care fees and communicating fees to parents, producing and sending invoices to parents, and managing the business accounts.

The commission found that between term four in 2013 and term four in 2014 she had issued invoices and letters that misre presented the amount of ECE (Early Childhood Education) subsidy received from the Ministry of Education.

That resulted in parents paying additional child care costs, and the preschool unlawfully receiving additional funding.

The sentencing judge said the motivation for the offending was to ‘‘maximise unlawful financial gain’’, to the amount of $221,632.15.

After an investigation by the Commerce Commission, the preschool was convicted in the District Court on seven charges under the Fair Trading Act of 1986 of making false or misleading representations and fined $254,099. The preschool was put into liquidation.

‘‘The preschool deliberately gave false and misleading information to parents and omitted to disclose to parents the level of funding it was receiving from the Ministry of Education. The false information was grossly wrong.

‘‘As a result the parents were required to pay significant additional amounts of child care costs and the preschool unlawfully received additional funding through its parental contribution and under the early childhood scheme,’’ Judge Jelas said.

The Teaching Council referred the case to its complaints assessment committee, which referred a charge of serious misconduct to the New Zealand Teachers Disciplinary Tribunal.

Brindle did not participate in the proceedings and wished to voluntarily deregister. Once an investigation was under way, a teacher no longer could do so.

‘‘Behaviour of this type is the antithesis of the standard of honesty expected of teachers,’’ the tribunal said.

It said Brindle ‘‘fundamentally undermined the trust placed in her by both the Ministry of Education and the parents and children associated with [the] preschool.’’

The tribunal decided in response to the serious misconduct, Brindle’s registration be cancelled, she be censured, and ordered to pay 40% ($2518.95) of the tribunal’s costs. — NZME WELLINGTON: The Supreme Court has rejected one of Kim Dotcom’s attempts to get a hearing from it — and ordered him to pay $2500 in costs to the United States.

However, the written judgement issued by Justices William Young and Ellen France yesterday is separate from another case brought by Mr Dotcom and three others, which will go before the Supreme Court in June.

Yesterday’s ruling withholds permission to make an appeal to the Supreme Court.

This relates to a judicial review begun by Mr Dotcom to challenge aspects of the process over extradition proceedings.

The US wants Mr Dotcom extradited there to face criminal copyright and related charges.

Following a US application, the High Court struck out seven of the eight causes of action named by Mr Dotcom in the judicial review.

Justices Young and France noted the eighth cause related to a decision of the Deputy Solicitorgeneral to direct that clones be made of the electronic devices seized from Mr Dotcom’s homes and that the clones be sent to the US.

The other three defendants in the extradition proceedings are also seeking judicial review of the Deputy Solicitorgeneral’s decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Dotcom’s appeal against the High Court decision, finding that the seven causes of action were either not reasonably arguable or were abuses of process.

‘‘We are not persuaded that the proposed appeal raises matters of general and public importance,’’ Justices Young and France wrote.

‘‘The applicant [Mr Dotcom] also argues that a miscarriage of justice will occur if leave is not granted. We are not persuaded that this is correct either.’’ — NZME