3434 items matching your search terms
1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHRRT 48 Reference No. HRRT 020/2012 UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT 1993 BETWEEN KELLY ARMFIELD PLAINTIFF AND BRADLEY NAUGHTON DEFENDANT AT NEW PLYMOUTH BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Mr GJ Cook JP, Member Mr BK Neeson, Member REPRESENTATION: Ms T Corbett and Mr L Hansen for Plaintiff (7 and 8 February 2013) Mr L Hansen for Plaintiff (15 April 2013) Mr B Naughton in person M
ANTHONY KIDD v GAIL ELIZABETH BEAUMONT AND ROY BEAUMONT NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 158 [28 November 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 158 EMPC 72/2016 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN ANTHONY KIDD Plaintiff AND GAIL ELIZABETH BEAUMONT AND ROY BEAUMONT First Defendants AND GAIL ELIZABETH BEAUMONT, ROY BEAUMONT AND DIPROSE MILLER TRUSTEES LIMI
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2008-100-000046 BETWEEN BORIS and GIORDANA BACIC Claimants AND TULIP HOLDINGS LIMITED (previously named Buildcorp Holdings Ltd) (In liquidation & removed) First Respondent AND NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent AND JAMES MICHAEL FAIRGRAY Third Respondent AND RICHARD ARTHUR ZGIERSKI- BOREYKO Fourth Respondent AND MALCOM BROWN MURRAY DAY ARCHITECTS (Removed 5 August 2008) Fifth Respondent AND SEAN LAK
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2008-100-000034 BETWEEN LEE FINDLAY AND MICHAEL ARNE SANDELIN as Trustees for LEE FINDLAY FAMILY TRUST Claimant AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL First Respondent AND ROY STANLEY SLATER Second Respondent Hearing: 27, 28, 29 July 2009 and 26 August 2009 Counsel Appearances: E St John, counsel for claimants. D Heaney SC and S Mitchell, counsel for first respondent. M Frogley, counsel for second respondent. Appearanc
ALA v ITE NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2017] NZEmpC 39 [12 April 2017] THERE IS AN ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES AND ANY INFORMATION LEADING TO THE PARTIES’ IDENTITY IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2017] NZEmpC 39 EMPC 282/2016 IN THE MATTER OF an application for orders under s 140(6) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 BETWEEN ALA Plaintiff AND ITE Defendant Hearing: 27, 28 February 2017 (heard at Taurang
...from filing complaints about breaches, and may contribute to a perception that breaches are not responded to consistently. I do not consider that the consequences of a proven complaint are so serious that a criminal standard of proof is required. 101. I therefore propose specifying that complaints of breach of PSOs are to be proven to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities. This clarification will simplify the pathway to protection orders and support Police to file complain...
LCRO 142/2013 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING A determination of the National Standards Committee BETWEEN UK Applicant AND VL Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr [UK] has applied for a review of a decision by the National Standards Committee dated 12 April 2013 in which the Co
...Legal Standards Officer. All of the NP’s complaint material, spread over several emails and including copies of correspondence and court decisions relating to the COCA proceedings, was before the Committee when it made its decision. 18 [101] The agenda notes comprehensively set out the NP’s complaints. There is nothing in any of the material which even remotely supports a submission that the Committee predetermined the outcome or had some bias either for or against the...
...19 In putting it this way, when referring to “separately owned property” I am describing property Mr A could gift in his will. I am not referring to “separate property” as that is understood in the PRA. 19 [101] The approach contended for, to protect Mrs A’s position, would have seen the five beneficiaries (of whom the executors were three), receive more. [102] There is a concern with this approach. Namely, whether the executors were compromis
KIWIRAIL LIMITED v JAMES MOBBS [2020] NZEmpC 139 [2 September 2020] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2020] NZEmpC 139 EMPC 222/2019 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN KIWIRAIL LIMITED Plaintiff AND JAMES MOBBS First Defendant AND MARITIME UNION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED Second