19427 items matching your search terms
...2017. (b) Broadspectrum is fined $10,000 for that breach; (c) Of that $10,000 fine, $5,000 is to be paid to Mr Nathan. Costs [80] Costs are reserved. In the absence of agreement Mr Nathan has seven days from the date of this judgment to file a memorandum and Broadspectrum has a further seven days to respond. K G Smith Judge Judgment signed at 3.30 pm on 28 July 2017
...Court, while subsection (3) provides that a copy of a lease for a term of more than 21 years must be sent to the Registrar for noting. Counsel for Mangatawa suggested that the layout of section ISO(B) therefore allows for subsequent execution and filing of the lease with the Registrar to endorse the contents. [II] Counsel's submissions refer to one aspect of a range of matters that reqUIre consideration by the Court, and I do not entirely agree with his submissions. There is an...
...trustee. [31] However, whilst Mr XX has been critical of Mr BY for these reasons, he does not question Mr BY’s competence. He says:30 This cost assessor does not believe there are any issues of competence arising from the practitioner’s files. The cost assessor is satisfied the practitioner did all of the work personally and there is not any evidence of the invoices being padded in any way. Similarly this cost assessor believes the practitioner has acted ethically in relati...
...hearing-based streams: in the refugee & protection stream (by 49 days), and in the deportation (resident) stream (by 68 days). Part of the reason for the overall improvement in timeliness is that the average time taken by members from allocation of file or last hearing, to the decision, has been further reduced (from 15 to 12 days). The one stream where the Tribunal has limited ability to control the time between lodgement and decision is the deportation (resident) stream. Thi...
...of selling the property on the open market, and the interests of both Mrs PA and Mrs GL; (iii) settlement of the sale of the property to Mrs GL having taken place within seven months of Mrs FH’s death. Application for review [17] Mrs PA filed an application for review on 15 December 2015. [18] Although she contends that “several core ethical considerations contained in [her] complaint were not addressed” by the Committee, as noted, she has since informed this Office on...
...material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express. 2.0 SCOPE OF SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE 2.1 In response to the further evidence provided by ORC witnesses on 14 March 2021, the Court has directed that parties may file supplementary briefs of evidence to respond to the new matters raised. I provide this supplementary brief to confirm my position in relation to the revised plan change text provided with the supplementary evidence of Mr de Pelsemaeke...
...Thorsen, an ecologist, dated 17 July 2020, and an application for leave to call that evidence. [9] The parties to the joint memorandum have confirmed there is no objection to Dr Thorsen’s evidence being admitted and they in turn sought leave to file evidence from Dr K M Lloyd in reply. That was not opposed by Oceana so both applications are granted as sought and the evidence will be considered below. [10] No party sought to cross-examine either Dr Thorsen or Dr Lloyd....
...for the proposal. The coding used is that contained in the Summary of Decisions table prepared for the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and published on the EPA website. Some of these footnote references have been corrected since the filing of Evidence in Chief. Where “consequential amendment” is noted, the amendment is a necessary consequence of a submission-based recommended amendment so that the overall integrity of the plan change is maintained and/or to ensure...
...for the proposal. The coding used is that contained in the Summary of Decisions table prepared for the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and published on the EPA website. Some of these footnote references have been corrected since the filing of Evidence in Chief. Where “consequential amendment” is noted, the amendment is a necessary consequence of a submission-based recommended amendment so that the overall integrity of the plan change is maintained and/or to ensure...
...(a) the adverse effects of the activity on the environment would be more than minor; and (b) the application was for an activity that would be contrary to the objectives and policies of the proposed plan. [3] On 18 December 2018, the appellant filed a notice of appeal against the decision in its entirety. [4] Following Court-assisted mediation, the parties have agreed that the appeal can be resolved by consent. [5] The Court has received and considered the following in support o...