Search Results

Search results for 110.

3132 items matching your search terms

  1. August 2016 outstanding applications [pdf, 259 KB]

    ...A20100009982 45/93 Deputy Registrar CJ 2010/47 - Jane Smith also known as Jane McKenzie or Jane Parapa or Jane Parepa or Jane Fraser - an succession orders made at 44 Wellington MB 228- 229 on 15/07/1966 - Application to the Chief Judge A20100011029 45/93 Iwi Courtney CJ 2010/52 - Ohuirua 2 - and easement orders made at 74 Whangarei MB 93 on 29/01/93 - Application to the Chief Judge A20100011141 45/93 Peggy Anne Gamble CJ 2010/78 - Hopa Heremaia Trust - Application to the Chief Ju...

  3. Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC 403) v Licensee B [2017] NZREADT 1 [pdf, 267 KB]

    ...separate issues of liability (whether the licensee’s 2 Morton-Jones v Real Estate Agents Authority [2016] NZHC 1804. 3 Morton-Jones, at [29]. 4 Morton-Jones, at [30]. 5 Pursuant to s 110(1) of the Act. See also Real Estate Agents Authority v Murphy [2015] NZREADT 42, at [79]. conduct was disgraceful) and penalty (the consequences of a finding that the licensee’s conduct was disgraceful). The proper approach is that...

  4. E102 Nicola Broadbent - Planning - RE - Council [pdf, 882 KB]

    ...standards in E24.6.1 of the AUP. Mr Wright has not prepared rebuttal evidence, but has confirmed to me that amended condition 111 is acceptable; d) A CNVMP is optional for construction of base buildings C-G (see the advice note after condition 110). If the developer opts not to prepare one, construction works will need to comply with the noise and vibration standards set out in the conditions. Mr Styles has confirmed in his rebuttal that this is acceptable; e) A const...

  5. LCRO 159/2014 AB and RJ v OC and BR [pdf, 209 KB]

    ...anguish may be made pursuant to section 156(1)(d) of the Act. [109] In Sandy v Khan, the LCRO made an award of $2,500.14 In another decision, Wandsworth v Ddinbych & Keith, the LCRO awarded the sum of $1,200 to the review applicant.15 [110] The circumstances in which compensation on this basis has been awarded vary widely, but in general terms, there must be something more than the stress associated with the complaint itself. Thus, in Sandy, the lawyer’s firm had acted...

  6. [2018] NZEmpC 83 Kaikorai Service Centre Ltd v First Union Inc [pdf, 904 KB]

    ...Dobson / Steve Parker (McPhail forwards letter from union organiser with comment) Yes 108 1-Feb-16 Email Neil McPhail – Bryan Dobson / Steve Parker with attachment (McPhail emails Dobson / Parker with draft response to union organiser) Yes 110 1-Mar-16 Email Neil McPhail – Bryan Dobson / Steve Parker (McPhail emails Dobson / Parker with draft response to union organiser) Yes 112 1-Mar-16 Email Neil McPhail – Bryan Dobson / Steve Parker with attachment (McPhail emails...

  7. LCRO 64/2018 IG v PC (1 August 2018) [pdf, 283 KB]

    ...dispute” of Mr PC’s fees through “proper professional channels”. As indicated, that did not occur until 13 months after Mr PC sent Mr IR his final invoice and statement of account and after the Committee had delivered its determination. [110] It is abundantly clear that Mr IR was clearly in breach of his obligations under r 10.7. [111] Ordinarily, I would simply leave matters there and confirm the whole of the Committee’s determination. [112] However, matters are comp...

  8. [2021] NZACC 29 - Van Essen v ACC (9 February 2021) [pdf, 196 KB]

    ...adviser, Dr Monigatti, dated 20 April 2016 and 30 May 2016 appear directed more towards the issue of back injury caused by work process and therefore are of lesser value on the issue of causation deriving initially from the discrete 2009 injury. [110] In summary, the evidence leaves us with Dr Dreyer’s ‘feelings’ that the appellant’s presentation of a progressive degenerative condition and not an acute injury, whereas Dr McBride’s view is that she has a pain disorder as a...

  9. [2020] NZEmpC 203 A Labour Inspector v Chhoir [pdf, 331 KB]

    ...assessment process involves a number of considerations, which are now well established.15 There are a number of considerations, which 15 Labour Inspector v Preet PVT Ltd [2016] NZEmpC 143, [2016] ERNZ 514; Labour Inspector v Prabh Ltd [2018] NZEmpC 110, [2018] ERNZ 310; Labour Inspector v Parihar [2019] NZEMpC 145, [2019] ERNZ 406. include mitigating and aggravating factors, all of which need to be appropriately weighed in arriving at a just result. [43] First, the o...

  10. Hauiti v Tamati - Puhunga A7D1 (2017) 68 Tairawhiti MB 100 (68 TRW 100) [pdf, 334 KB]

    ...that in this case the evidence does not support a conclusion that there has been a complete exclusion of a co-owner from possession. The applicants’ evidence is that they have only ever sought Ms Tamati’s complete removal 68 Tairawhiti MB 110 from the land. The applicants are not entitled to do this as all owners have equal entitlement. Further there is evidence that whānau have stayed at the property with the Ms Tamati. [46] In addition Mr Revington stated that the...