18495 items matching your search terms
...1 The finance company made demand and appointed receivers on the same day. 2 Mr NE is a consultant to [Company 3]. 3 [14] Mr GT’s complaints were many and varied, and difficult to comprehend. In a 21 page “affidavit” filed with his complaint, Mr GT refers to:3 • a declaration of insolvency made by Mr NE; • allegations relating to a GST payment and refund; • employment related payments; • defamation; • “Illegal” advice relating to payment
...imply that Mr GA did not give the matter the required degree of attention to endeavour to achieve a positive outcome, but it is understandable that the 17 Response to complaint, above n 8 at [3] and [5]. 11 priority afforded to Mr OT’s file was less than afforded to the files of fee paying clients. If this was the cause of Mr GA not identifying problems with witnesses and the impact of cl 20.4 any sooner, Mr GA may regret not terminating the retainer, as he was entitled to...
...in Wellington Date of Decision: 24 July 2020 Date of Issue: 24 July 2020 COSTS DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT A: Costs awarded REASONS Introduction [1] On 15 December 2017 this Court issued a decision 1 (the decision) on an appeal filed by Ahuareka Trustees (No. 2) Limited (Ahuareka) against a determination of Ahuareka Trustees (No. 2) Ltd v Auckland Council [2017] NZEnvC 205. 2 for commercial use (including a restaurant and cafe), community hall and carpark, on par...
...members of a syndicate formed for the purposes of property development. They fell into a dispute with the other members of the syndicate and sought advice from Richard Zhao Lawyers Ltd (trading as Amicus Law). [4] Their first point of contact on the file was the principal of the firm, Richard Zhao. [5] Following advice from Mr Zhao, the respondents instructed him to lodge a caveat against the title to the property in respect of which the disagreement had arisen. 2 [6] The rel...
...has resulted in permanent impairment resulting from the personal injury; for which he has cover. In such circumstances ACC could not agree to reassessment. In reaching my decision, I have considered Mr Hristovski’s evidence, ACC’s case file and submissions, the ACC Act 2001, and relevant case law. [12] ACC’s position in respect of this particular appeal is that it was not required to undertake a reassessment in 2020, because there was no evidence of any deterioratio...
...and Wildbore v Accident Compensation Corporation [2006] NZACC 94 at [53] 2 Herlihy v Accident Compensation Corporation [2006] NZACC 196 at [33]; and Collins v Accident Compensation Corporation [2009] NZACC 146. Case for Mr Grey [47] Mr Grey filed brief written submissions and made oral submissions at the hearing. In summary, Mr Grey was critical of the VI process which he saw as an exercise by the Corporation to get him off the books. He did not accept that he had achieved vocat...
...said, there is a potential argument that the rights of ownership and possession explicitly provided for under s 18(1)(a) could encompass rights of occupation. [27] In responding to the trustees’ application for an injunction, the appellant filed an application for a declaration of ownership of the shed. As part of that application, she claimed that her ownership rights in the property included the right to access and occupy the building, and as such she cannot in the course of...
...and the supraspinatus musculature is maintained (no reported fatty infiltration or atrophy). These features are strongly suggestive of a non chronic rotator cuff tear. On the balance of probabilities and considering all the evidence on the file the claimant did likely suffer an injury to the left supraspinatus tendon in his accident on 20/09/2017. [29] Following ACC’s decision being upheld at review, the case was considered by the Corporation’s clinical advisory panel (...
...were served in March 2021. (c) The licence granted to the Ngāti Pahauwera Development Trust is frustrated because the respondents have prevented the licensee from effectively utilising the relevant part of the Mohaka A4B block. [5] The trustees filed the injunction applications on 22 July 2022. They requested that the applications be heard in Hastings, which was granted on 22 August 2022. The applications were first heard in Hastings on 3 November 2022, and were adjourned part...
...charge upheld, though not that such conduct was unprofessional (he resiled at the hearing from an earlier admission it was unprofessional). The acknowledgment of such conduct had been made by Mr Bright early in the Tribunal’s process, when he filed his response on 7 July 2020 to the amended charge.9 A short hearing in order to hear argument as to whether the admitted conduct amounted to professional wrongdoing, would still have been necessary. It would not have required witnesses...