18507 items matching your search terms
...to a 42.39 % increase in applications to the Tribunal in the last two years. The Tribunal also handled 99 disputes that had been carried over from the previous year. Y/E 30/6/16 Y/E 30/6/17 Y/E 30/6/18 Total number of disputes filed during the year 342 399 487 Disputes carried over from previous year 43 60 99 TOTAL 385 459 586 2 Those applications came from throughout the country, with the majority involving traders based...
...be facilitated by an independent person on behalf of the Court. I direct the Registrar to make enquiries with Kath Taurau, the Principal Liason Officer, to determine whether she is available to facilitate the meeting; (e) Ms Taurau is to file a report on the outcome of the meeting. The trustees will need to file copies of the minutes, notice and attendance register for the meeting; (f) Once the above material has been filed, this application is to be set down for furth...
...The trustees seek costs in the sum of $8,353.61. Broken down the costs include: a) Solicitors costs $7,200.00 b) GST $900.00 c) Expenses (GST inclusive) photocopying, bureau fax, tolls $253.61 TOTAL $8,353.61 [4] Counsel for the appellants filed submissions in response on 19 November 2009. [5] We note the date the submissions were filed and apologise for the delay in delivering this decision. [6] The issue for this Court is whether costs should be awarded and if so the ap...
...[20] Louise and Robert argue they obtained a loan from the Te Ukaipo Whānau Trust, a trust established for Robert’s immediate whānau. Edith disputes this, arguing she had never heard of a loan from the Ukaipo Whānau Trust until Louise filed evidence in this proceeding. [21] Louise asserts she and Robert repaid the loan to the Ukaipo Whānau Trust for the purchase of the shed. She states that a further loan was taken out for the renovations to install the toilet block. S...
...proceedings should be dismissed. 1 Drought v Auckland Council [2018] NZERA Auckland 261. [3] It was anticipated that the substantive challenge would be heard on 5 March 2019, and the parties filed evidence and submissions. However, Mr Drought applied to strike out the challenge, and sought to have that application dealt with first, as a preliminary matter. I proceeded to hear that application on 5 March 2019. The subst...
...2008 BETWEEN GASTON COMA Applicant AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY First Respondent On the papers Tribunal: Hon P J Andrews (Chairperson) Ms N Dangen (Member) Mr N O’Connor (Member) Submissions filed by: Ms Wisniewski, on behalf of the Authority Date of Ruling: 17 April 2019 ____________________________________________________________________ RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL (Application for order prohibiting publicat...
...reasonableness; and if so, whether this issue is moot; and (d) if the Court can consider those arguments, whether the Authority’s orders should be quashed for unreasonableness. The parties have claims in the Authority [7] Ms Johnstone has filed a personal grievance claim in the Authority for unjustifiable disadvantage arising from Kinetic’s actions after she tendered her resignation. Kinetic has counterclaimed alleging, among other things, Ms Johnstone misused its confide...
...The Appellant also notes that it was neither the holder of the resource consent nor the person undertaking the works. [18] On the ground that the appeal is unnecessary, the Appellant submits that the Council waited until after the appeal had been filed before taking steps to withdraw the abatement notice. In support of that ground, the Appellant submits: (a) It responded urgently, arranging two site visits within a week of service of the abatement notice and entering into correspond...
...breaches of regulations, in order to establish that “… Ms Elder’s conduct displays a repetitive disregard for the Regulations and orders made by a Standards Committee”: “10. … (a) In 2014, Ms Elder was warned that if she was late in filing her certificates of compliance with the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) her non-compliance may be referred to the Committee. (b) Despite being warned of potential disciplinary action being taken against her, Ms Elder continued to file...
...substantive determination as of right was 27 November 2017. If Ms Randle had brought a de novo challenge, she could have called her colleague and her colleague’s husband as witnesses in the Court. There is no explanation for why a challenge was not filed before 27 November 2017. Nor is there a good explanation as to why it took until 7 February 2018 for the application to reopen the substantive determination to be lodged with the Authority. [37] The Warehouse ought to have bee...