3434 items matching your search terms
...designated place to another for the purpose of a haul out. The vessel haul out must be undertaken within 24 hours of arriving In the new designated place. Proof via receipt from a haul out facility must be provided to a council authorised person. 101 ca C ca o E ~ :>-1' <tiN ;::0 ~N 1a~ o.r-I OlO eN ';: ~ <tI_ 20.. '0 .... e ai <tI E .... Ol ~ C'I 0.. <tI _ e <tI <tI 52 '51 ~ '0 e <tI ::c .......
...initiative. The current appropriation for these services is about $5.5m for referrals coming from both the family and criminal courts. The Ministry of Justice also funds safety programmes for adult victims and children. The Ministry contracts with 101 providers to deliver these programmes. Reforms to the Domestic Violence Act came into effect on 1 October 2014. These reforms changed the structure and delivery of programmes and introduced a requirement for a respondent to a...
...$2,157.29 being the balance of the trust funds that have not been properly accounted for. 19 See Rātima v Sullivan – Tataraakina C (2017) 64 Tākitimu MB 121 (64 TKT 121) 70 Tākitimu MB 101 [56] Mr Rātima is directed to arrange for such views to be obtained from the beneficiaries by 31 October 2018 by way of general meeting, postal ballot or a combination of both. A final decision will then issue as to liability. [5...
...being bound to the obligations and benefits contained in the agreement. Conversely, until that symbolic but important act of signing, the form of agreement remains as a draft and, potentially, subject to further negotiation and alteration. [101] As with most contracts, and employment contracts or agreements in particular, I conclude that the parties did not intend that they would each be bound by the draft written agreement unless and until that was executed by the writing of t...
...2 Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s 45(2) & (3). 3 Section 49(3) & (4). 4 Section 50. 5 Section 51(1). 6 Section 53(1). 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 12 [67] According to Ms D, the statement of complaint did not adequately represent the full facts. She was anxious about responding though, as a lot of her knowledge was second hand. She doubted her ability to
...Court for reconsideration. Advancing its case without sufficient regard to all the works enabled by the NOR, QAC would have caused RPL to incur unnecessary cost. [37] During the same hearing RPL sought: 14 [2014] NZEnvC 244 at [71]-[89] and [94]-[101]. 5 [2015] NZEnvC 222 at [258]. 0 ' [2015] NZEnvC 222 at [9] and [28] . z: a ... "h . ~ , ;~ -{f ~l' ._ ~",\ ~OUflT 01' "' ... / .. _------.. - 11 (a) a determination of the legal (interpret...
...whether the plaintiff could prevent the defendant from working for another courier business. The first plaintiff, Post Haste, had assumed 7 Nokes v Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 1014 at 1020, [1940] 3 All ER 549 at 553 (HL) per Viscount Simon LC; the context of this discussion is whether a provision of the Companies Act 1929 (UK) created some sort of statutory exemption. 8 At 1026 and 556. 9 Warren Skerrett, above...
...WASCA 115). 12 Hunstanton v Cambourne and Chester LCRO 167/2009 (February 2010) at [15]. 13 Application for review, supporting reasons at [9]. 15 were inattentive or inefficient in the manner in which they managed the various proceedings. [101] Mr BH notes that Ms AG had been successful in all of the proceedings.14 [102] I have, as did the Committee, considered each of the r 9 factors and have carefully reviewed the time records. That examination has been conducted against the...
...to a consideration as to whether Mr BE, in pressing his client’s case, went too far. [100] For the reasons traversed above, I do not consider that his correspondence was constructed with intent to cause embarrassment or distress to Mrs CA. [101] Inevitably, the dispute would have inconvenienced Mrs CA and would have been unpleasant for her. It is compellingly clear that she considered that the allegations levelled against her were unfair and potentially compromising to her reputa...
...[2017] NZHC 376 at [93]. 5 Section 50. 6 Section 51(1). 7 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee [2008] NZSC 55, [2009] 1 NZLR 1 at [97], [128] & [151] (citation omitted). 8 Z v Dental Complaints Assessment Committee, above n 7, at [97], [101]–[102] & [112]. 8 [42] The Tribunal has received from the Registrar the statement of complaint, dated 6 December 2017, with supporting documents. [43] Ms Ho filed a statement of reply, dated 3 January 2018, with supporting...