3031 items matching your search terms
... Associated respondent(s). $210 16 July 2016 Application(s)/ Order(s) Activity Fees Tasks Defended ‘on notice’ or ‘without notice’ Defended Protection Order $430 For Receiving/perusing notice of defence and associated documents from respondent Taking instructions, attending client Preparing, filing and serving applicant’s reply Liaising with Court appointed counsel, and third parties (Police, doctor, hospital, witnesse...
...$210 Domestic Violence (Applicant) 16 July 2020 Application(s)/ Order(s) Activity Fees Tasks Defended ‘on notice’ or ‘without notice’ Defended Protection Order $430 For • Receiving/perusing notice of defence and associated documents from respondent • Taking instructions, attending client • Preparing, filing and serving applicant’s reply • Liaising with Court appointed counsel, and third parties (Police, doctor, hospital, witnesse...
...respondent(s). $210 Family Violence (Applicant) 16 July 2020 Application(s)/ Order(s) Activity Fees Tasks Defended ‘on notice’ or ‘without notice’ Defended Protection Order $430 For • Receiving/perusing notice of defence and associated documents from respondent • Taking instructions, attending client • Preparing, filing and serving applicant’s reply • Liaising with Court appointed counsel, and third parties (Police, doctor, hospita...
...$210 Family Violence (Applicant) 15 18 December 2023 Application(s)/ Order(s) Activity Fees Tasks Defended ‘on notice’ or ‘without notice’ Defended Protection Order $430 For • Receiving/perusing notice of defence and associated documents from respondent • Taking instructions, attending client • Preparing, filing and serving applicant’s reply • Liaising with Court appointed counsel, and third parties (Police, doctor, hospital, witnesse...
...a miscalculation on his part. Mr Tupe’s leave application was eventually filed on 26 October 2021, six days late. That further delay was caused by procedural issues relating to Mr Austin’s filing of the correct documents. [5] The draft statement of claim accompanying the application would seek to challenge the Authority’s determination on a de novo basis; that is, a full hearing of the entire matter. Mr Tupe claims he was unjustifiably disadvantaged and unjustifiably dis...
...against Ms Gini of $4,500 in respect of her unsuccessful claim against Ms Sturgess. [4] On 30 November 2011, the defendant, Literacy Training Limited, filed a challenge to the Authority’s determination and on 9 December 2011, Ms Gini filed a statement of defence and a cross-challenge seeking an increase in the quantum of the Authority’s awards for both her economic and non-economic loss. [5] The next significant development came on 3 May 2012 when Literacy Training discontin...
...virtually contemporaneous investigations by the Privacy Commissioner. The first was identified as C/25998 and the second as C/26619. Two certificates of investigation were issued in relation to the second and both were filed by Dr Lohr with his statement of claim. The existence of two certificates for C/26619 led to some confusion. This was compounded by the fact they are identical except that the second, apparently issued at the request of Dr Lohr, has greater particularity in the ...
...[23] Mr Goel has satisfied us, on the balance of probabilities, that he was qualified for the work in question. Whether there was work available [24] The third limb is whether there was work available. [25] Notwithstanding that the defendants’ statement of reply says there were no positions available, this was not referred to by Mr Barron in evidence. Rather, Mr Barron’s evidence was that he was generally looking to hire people and he was hiring people up to the date of Mr Goel...
Responding Together: An Integrated Report Evaluating the Aims of the Waitakere Family Violence Court Protocols Prepared for the Ministry of Justice by Mandy Morgan, Leigh Coombes, Erika Te Hiwi and Sarah McGray, Massey University Responding Together Published in August 2008 by Ministry of Justice PO Box 180 Wellington New Zealand 2008 © Crown
...not the end of the matter because Mr Yu has now proposed a methodology which he says will address properly disputed questions of privilege of documents that may be contained on the laptop. [31] Mr Yu’s proposal is set out as Schedule A to his statement of defence filed on 1 April 2015. It should speak for itself as follows: 1. The defendant is ordered to deliver up the laptop to the plaintiff subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) Plaintiff and defendant are to join...