18490 items matching your search terms
...THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN DEBORAH HOFF Plaintiff AND THE WOOD LIFECARE (2007) LIMITED Defendant Hearing: (on the papers by way of submissions filed on 3, 19 and 29 June 2015 ) Appearances: A Sharma, counsel for the plaintiff J Goldstein and L Ryder, counsel for the defendant Judgment: 14 September 2015 COSTS JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A D FORD Introduction [1]...
...fixed term leases which have now expired. On 13 December 2013 the trustees served a notice to quit on Mr Takimoana and Ms Davies requiring them to vacate and deliver possession of the properties. [4] On 7 March 2014 Mr Takimoana and Ms Davies filed applications in this Court seeking a determination as per s 18(1)(a) of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 (“the Act”) that the trustees were acting in breach of their duties and should be estopped from purporting to evict them from the p...
...former title Ruatoki B 13A2B, on 27 January 1984. 3 The current trustees, Frank Vercoe, Peter Keepa, Donald Turnbull and Larry Hawkins, were appointed on 24 June 1992. 4 Procedural history [4] The initial application per s 67 of the Act was filed on 10 April 2014 and was heard before Judge Savage on 17 July 2014. 5 The applicants were concerned that Mr Keepa had erected a fence on the land, without consultation, that was impacting on the use of the block by other beneficiaries...
...Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for costs BETWEEN SAMANTHA CASEY Plaintiff AND SENSI MERIVALE LIMITED (TRADING AS MOD'S HAIR MERIVALE) Defendant Hearing: By memoranda of submissions filed on 7 and 17 April 2014 Appearances: L Ryder and J Goldstein, counsel for plaintiff PW Payton, counsel for defendant Judgment: 7 May 2014 COSTS JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] The plaintiff’s...
...1 Hutchison v Nelson City Council [2014] NZEmpC 117 [Substantive judgment] at [113]. humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings. 2 Costs were accordingly reserved. 3 [2] Ms Hutchison through her agent, Mr Flower, has now filed a submission seeking costs. In essence, it is submitted in support of that application that: Ms Hutchison was successful in her application, but the process had been protracted, complex and time consuming. Unwarranted additional c...
...also apply to the Horotiu works. Any remedies granted would also equally apply to those workers. It is further argued that a further amendment so close to the hearing will give rise to prejudice as no evidence relating to the Wairoa plant has been filed as yet and the company will now have 1 New Zealand Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 204. 2 New Zealand Meat Workers & Related Tra...
...was necessary to produce appropriate documents for filing in the Court, and the fact that DQ‟s former business partner was going to oppose the application, DQ and the Applicant instructed the Respondent to proceed. [6] After the Respondent had filed the proceedings and responded to the defence she sent an account to DQ on 18 March 2009 (although the bill is dated 28 February) based on a reduced hourly rate of $185 plus GST. [7] Despite several assurances that the account would be...
...needed to brief Mr Gill at all. [13] The claimants further argue that the defence run by the Council that it may have placed reliance on a producer statement for the cladding installation, when there was no producer statement on the Council file, was always without substantial merit and again put the claimants to unnecessary expense. 7 Chair’s Directions- Expert Witnesses-Code of Conduct. 7...
...the applicant was provided with a copy of the determination, where the determination has not been served on or given to the applicant. [18] There are two critical elements to s 198. First, the section ensures that applicants have adequate time to file an application for review. Secondly, the section 1 Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill 2010 (120-1), cl 10.1. 4 imposes obligation on an applicant to file their application promptl...
...respect of the complaints against Messrs QM and LX are not part of this review. [16] A review hearing took place in [Town] on 28 October, attended by Mr FE, and Mr CC appeared on behalf of Mr SH. Mr SH himself was overseas. [17] Subsequent to filing the review application, Mr FE filed an affidavit by Mr LX. Mr CC objected to this on the grounds that further evidence is not generally allowed to be introduced in conjunction with a review, as the review must be based on the material...