3133 items matching your search terms
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2014] NZREADT 69 READT 037/12 IN THE MATTER OF charges laid under s.91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (CAC 20006) Prosecutor AND ZOHREH HOMEI AZIMI Defendant MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Judge P F Barber - Chairperson Mr J Gaukrodger - Member Ms C Sandelin - Member HEARD at AUCKLAND on 27 and 28 May 2014 DATE OF THIS DECISION 16 September 2014 COUNSE
Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2009-100-000067 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 31 BETWEEN STEPHEN LESLIE ALDRIDGE, KATHLEEN MARGARET ALDRIDGE AND CA TRUSTEES LTD AS TRUSTEES OF THE SL & KM ALDRIDGE FAMILY TRUST Claimants AND JOHN WILLIAM AND ROBYN BOE AND KAY LYNETTE PEEBLES First Respondents AND HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent AND BRUCE ROBERT SCOTT (Removed) Third Respondent AND MICHAEL SWART Fourth Respondent AND KE
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2012-100-000017 [2013] NZWHT AUCKLAND 7 BETWEEN PATRICK AND LESLEE O’CONNELL Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND CEDRIC DUDLEY FRENCH Second Respondent AND ROBERT PETER JOSEPH TOEBOSCH Third Respondent Hearing: 27 and 28 November 2012 Closing Written Submissions: 12 December 2012 – claimants first and second respondents 14 December 2012- Mr Toebosch, third respondent Closing Oral
2013 Maori Appellate Court MB 598 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIKATO MANIAPOTO DISTRICT A20130001428 A20130005882 UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against orders of the Māori Land Court made on 21 December 2012 at 50 Waikato Maniapoto MB 10-16 and on 30 April 2013 at 55 Waikato Maniapoto MB 288-306 in respect of Part Papaaroha 6B Block BETWEEN GEORGE TAMA NICHOLLS Appellant AND MARK STEVENS,
...earnings shall remain at that level - subject of course to Orders in Council. [109] Subsection (4) provides that where the amount under s.104 is greater than the amount under s.117, the higher relevant earnings under s.104 are to be taken. [110] Section 117(5) prescribes a maximum amount under the provision. The prescribed amount is set out in the First Schedule - at the time of the 1972 Act the 17 maximum was $100 per week; the maximum was increased to $120 per week...
Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2008-100-000010 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 25 BETWEEN MICHAEL and ADELE COLE Claimants AND EURO-ASIA INVESTMENTS CO LTD First Respondent (Settled) AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL (formerly NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL) Second Respondent (Settled) AND REALTY INSIGHT LIMITED Third Respondent AND DAVID LEE Fourth Respondent (Settled) AND THEOTESTO REYES Fifth Respondent AND CITYWIDE BUILDING CONSULTANTS (AUCKLAND)
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2008-100-000036 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 27 BETWEEN VIVIENNE DIANA LOWE, GRAHAM BRENTLEIGH BOND and LORRAINE LILA BARTLEY as Trustees of the VIVIENNE HICKS FAMILY TRUST Claimant AND ROGER MORRISON First Respondent AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Second Respondent AND STUART SAVILL (KERIAN SAVILL removed) Third Respondents AND MAJORIE and ROBERT JANSEN Fourth Respondents AND PLASTER SYSTEMS LIMITED Fifth Respondent AND MA
Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2009-100-000105 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 32 BETWEEN HONG ZHONG AND RUN ZHONG Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND ROSE MARY MCLAUGHLAN Second Respondent AND YA WEI LI Third Respondent AND STANLEY CHEN Fourth Respondent AND ORIENT BUILDERS LIMITED Fifth Respondent AND LU ZHENG Sixth Respondent AND HBRC LIMITED Seventh Respondent Hearing: 29, 30 and 31 March 2011 Closing
IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2016] NZHRRT 38 Reference No. HRRT 032/2013 UNDER Human Rights Act 1993 BETWEEN SATNAM SINGH Plaintiff AND SHANE SINGH First Defendant AND SCORPION LIQUOR (2006) LIMITED Second Defendant AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Judge W K Hastings Deputy Chairperson Dr H Hickey, Member Pastor R Musuku, Member APPEARANCES: S Judd and D Peirse for the Plaintiff S Lance for the Defendan
...advice that he had concluded that the appeal had little prospect of success. It is not uncommon for a lawyer to change their view on the merits of a particular case as the case evolves. Did Mr DL fail to provide Mr CM with files when requested? [110] Following the hearing, Mr DL clarified that he was still retaining the files he had uplifted from Mr [EO]. [111] He advised that these files would be released to Mr CM on payment of his account. 20 [112] This issue should be f...