18507 items matching your search terms
...Registrar by no later than 23 February 2007 of the confirmed availability of their witnesses after 1 August 2007 so that a fixture can be allocated. [15] The parties are reminded that the first timetabling step is for each of them to file and serve a sworn list of documents by 9 March 2007 with inspection to be completed by 20 April 2007. C M Shaw JUDGE Judgment signed at 9.45 on 16 February 2007
...have been heard fully. In order to accommodate the need for counsel for the defendant to fully prepare, the hearing was to have taken place at 10am on Wednesday 7 March 2012 together with the hearing in ARC 19/12. [6] Mr Davenport subsequently filed a memorandum on behalf of the RMTU advising that he and his client did not consider that the important issues involved in this case could be effectively addressed on the papers on Wednesday in the setting of an interim injunction appl...
...2011. Neither change was initiated by the complainants. [7] The appellant subsequently wished to void the contract because he believed the sale price was well below market value. Discussion on Current Status of this Appeal [8] This appeal was filed with the Tribunal’s registrar on 6 June 2012. Throughout this year this registry has endeavoured to make contact with the appellant. [9] He had been contacted on 28 January 2013 about a teleconference then scheduled (regarding thi...
...hours time spent contacting patients and 2.5 hours administration time (across two pharmacies) at the rate of $40 per hour plus GST (reduced from the claimed rate of $80 per hour plus GST). [12] I am unable to consider the costs involved in filing the claim, and preparing for and attending the Disputes Tribunal hearing under s 43 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988.
...he’s somehow grown the cahones to front up now he’s looking to make 3 or 4 million – nice publicity stunt. A shame Closeup didn’t tell Mr Vendor to go fuck himself”. 2 [3] At today’s hearing the Defendant appeared in person having filed a response to the charge which he admitted and tendered an explanation for his conduct. [4] Having heard the Defendant today the Tribunal is of the view that the Defendant admitted the particulars of the charge but not the gravam...
...commenced BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTORS LIFTING CENTRE LIMITED Applicant AND SPARK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Resondent AND VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Second Respondent Hearing: (on papers filed on 2 May 2016) Appearances: C Ussher, counsel for the applicant Judgment: 4 May 2016 JUDGMENT NO 2 OF JUDGE B A CORKILL [1] Before the Court is an application for pre-proceeding disclosure for all documen...
...DECISION [1] In our decision of 8 October 2015 we provided reasons for a finding of unsatisfactory conduct against Mr Lee. Mr Lee and counsel for the Standards Committee, Mr McCoubrey, agreed that penalty could be considered on the papers and filed written submissions. These have been considered by the Tribunal and our decision is as follows. [2] The Standards Committee having regard to the findings of the Tribunal sought penalty orders of a Censure, fine in the region of $2...
...decision in relation to charges, dismissing one and in respect of the other, finding the practitioner guilty of unsatisfactory conduct. This decision was released on 24 April 2013 and submissions were sought concerning penalty. Counsel have now filed those submissions and have agreed that such can be considered on the papers. Having regard to the fact that this is not a misconduct finding but rather the lesser category of unsatisfactory conduct, and having regard to the parties...
...Chairperson REPRESENTATION: Mr WJ Eaglesome in person Ms A Mobberley and Mr M Freedman for defendant DATE OF DECISION: 8 June 2015 at 3pm DECISION OF CHAIRPERSON RECORDING CONSENT INTERIM ORDERS1 Background [1] These proceedings were filed on 9 February 2015. A few days later, on 13 February 2015, Mr Eaglesome sought an interim order requiring the defendant to adhere to an agreement dated 29 August 2014 between Mr Eaglesome and the Department of Corrections relatin...
...matter more properly raised with her lawyer rather than with the Respondent. I observed that the Applicant had also raised complaints about her own lawyer, and noted that this matter could be further pursued at the review hearing relating to that file. [11] The further complaint concerned the Respondent’s failure to have provided the Applicant with a letter of engagement. At the review hearing I discussed with the 3 Applicant the provisions of Rule 3.7 of the Lawyers Cond...