18483 items matching your search terms
...successful and, subject to any pre-trial offers of which I am unaware, Mr Taylor is entitled to a contribution to his costs both in the Authority and in the Court. The parties are encouraged to agree costs. If they are unable to do so, Mr Beck should file and serve a memorandum within 30 working days. Mr Nidd will then have 20 working days in which to respond. A A Couch Judge Signed at 2.40 pm on 7 December 2011.
...course of her employment. [41] Those findings of fact are sufficient to dispose of the case. The plaintiff‟s claim is dismissed and the defendant is awarded costs. If agreement cannot be reached on the issue of costs then Mr Scotland is to file and serve a memorandum within 21 days and Ms Kennedy is to have a like period in which to respond. A D Ford Judge Judgment signed at 9.30 am on 25 May 2011
...[61] The Authority did not award costs and they remain to be fixed as do the costs on the challenge. [62] Counsel are invited to reach agreement on both of these matters but if they are unable to do so counsel for the defendant is to file a memorandum as to costs in the Authority and the Court within 28 days of this decision. The plaintiff has 14 days to respond to that memorandum. C M SHAW JUDGE Judgment signed at 10.00 am on 7 November 2008...
...fall. In any event, the worker was legally aided and it would be inappropriate to order the worker to make any contribution to the farmer’s costs beyond the extent of his contribution to legal aid. If counsel wish to be heard on costs, they may file memoranda within 21 days after the date of this decision. Otherwise, there will be no order for costs. A A Couch Judge Judgment signed at 1.00pm on 20 March 2009
...incentive payments made to them. [51] The question of quantum was not addressed in this challenge. That is a matter for the parties to sort out between them. Costs [52] These were reserved. If the parties cannot agree these, the defendant is to file a memorandum as to costs within 28 days of this decision. The plaintiff has 14 days to respond. JUDGE Judgment signed at 4pm on 13 July 2006 AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V THE NEW ZEALAND MEAT WORKERS AND RELATED TRADES UNION...
...award of costs. I do not make a ruling to that effect, however, and it is now a matter for the Board whether it wishes to seek costs. If so, I expect counsel will discuss the matter in the first instance. Failing agreement, Mr Harrison should file and serve a memorandum within 30 working days after the date of this decision. Mrs Guthrie will then have 20 working days after service in which to respond. A A Couch Judge Signed at 10.00am on 5 November 2012....
...to be remitted to the Crown. Costs [55] Unless there are arrangements between the parties of which I am unaware, Ms Livingston is entitled to a reasonable contribution to her costs. If the parties are unable to agree, a memorandum should be filed on behalf of Ms Livingston within 30 working days after the date of this decision. The plaintiff is then to have 20 working days in which to respond. A A Couch Judge Signed at 9.40am on 24 July 2015...
...Shadforth does have some experience representing clients before the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, and the previous tribunals that exercised that jurisdiction. However, most of those matters involve written submissions, which together with the file relating to the decision in issue comprise the material for making the decision. Distinctions between submissions and evidence are not usually critical in that forum. [14] Ms Shadforth has only a very small part of the academic training r...
...Supervision of offenders deported to New Zealand after serving a prison sentence overseas Hon Amy Adams, Minister of Justice Supervision of offenders deported to New Zealand after serving a prison sentence overseas Date 15 May 2015 File reference SCI 02 04 01 Action Sought Timeframe/Deadline Indicate your preference for one of the three options for a supervision regime for deported offenders 29 May 2015 Contacts for telephone discussion (if required) Na...
...known by real estate agents on Waiheke Island. [16] In the course of his evidence Mr Evans had emphasised that he asked Mr Orr on two occasions precisely where the relevant boundary ran. He said that Mr Orr responded that he would check his files and, at a later meeting at the property, gave Mr Evans a general indication of where the boundary ran but did not in any way indicate the possibility of any encroachment. [17] Mr Orr conceded that he had indicated to Mr Evans where he c...