3031 items matching your search terms
86 Tākitimu MB 283 I TE KOOTI WHENUA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TĀKITIMU In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Tākitimu District A20150001866 A20160005018 WĀHANGA Under Sections 67, 238 and 240 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Mangamaire B No 2 Block I WAENGA I A Between ME And JAMES ROBERT HUTCHESON Te Kaitono Applicant CATHERINE CLARKSON, KETTEPUNGA CLARKSON, SH
CLAIM NO: 02832 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN DONALD WILLIAM KENNEDY and CATHERINE ANN KENNEDY Claimants AND SCANNER INVESTMENTS LTD First Respondent AND WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent AND CALLY CONSTRUCTION LTD Third Respondent AND CLIVE LEWIS trading as Clive Lewis Draughting Service Fourth Respondent DETERMINATION OF ADJUDICATOR (Dated 24 Janua
...pregnant women. It is therefore artificial to suggest that treating someone differently because of the symptoms of their pregnancy is not discrimination because it is separate from pregnancy. This submission is misguided and is not accepted as a defence to the claim that Ms Doria was caused to resign by the defendants’ actions in respect of her pregnancy.26 [68] The Tribunal has also had regard to the defendants’ submission that Ms Doria’s rudeness and apparent lack of good...
...(“the Rules”). [2] On 14 February 2020, the parties advised the Tribunal that Mr Hanford would plead guilty to the alternative charge under s 73(c)(iii) of the Act, and that the Committee would withdraw the charge under s 73(a). An Agreed Statement of Facts has been filed. [3] Although an oral hearing was scheduled for this matter, the parties subsequently agreed that the Tribunal would consider it on the papers. Facts [4] At all relevant times the defendant, Mr Hanford,...
...Brown produced copies of his handwritten meeting notes from these meetings, which supported his recollection of what occurred. Mr Tenenbaum accepts that the parties had weekly catchup meetings; however, he does not recall making any of the above statements to Mr Brown. Mr Tenenbaum instead says that Mr Brown was assisting the Board with the creation of an ESOP and that the ESOP was not for Mr Brown. [10] In November 2021 Mr Brown informed Mr Huang that Mr Tenenbaum had offered...
DECISION OF TRIBUNAL1 [1] Peter Thomas is married to Lee-Ann Pikiora Hawe-Thomas (Ms Hawe). Ms Hawe was investigated by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) regarding her entitlement to certain benefits. In the course of that investigation MSD sent letters to various third 1 This decision is to be cited as Thomas v Ministry of Social Development [2024] NZHRRT 63. IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2024] NZHRRT 63 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA Reference No. HRRT
...form of the right of renewal clause was not specifically at issue in that case, in reaching its conclusion, the Court identified and considered the lease document and the construction of the terms that related to payment of rent. [16] There are statements regarding the terms of the lease (including the right of renewal clause) recorded in the evidence of the parties, the transcript of the hearing, and the decision itself. Included in the Court record is the signed affidavit of Elizab...
...Eden Group Limited (Eden Group), has a strong, seriously arguable case against the first, second and third respondents, all former employees of it. In accordance with the Court’s Practice Direction, 2 Eden Group has filed a proposed form of statement of problem which it will file in the Employment Relations Authority after execution of the orders that have been made. Its causes of action in those proceedings in the Authority include: breach of previous and enduring provisio...
...were biased. (f) Had abdicated their responsibility to investigate the complaint under the Act by referring to s 138(1)(f) of the Act. (g) Deliberately omitted to refer to some of the complaints made by Mr and Mrs AB and made certain incorrect statements in the decision in an attempt to obstruct, hinder, resist and deceive the LCRO. [16] On review Mr and Mrs AB also raised issue that they had made complaint about the Complaints Service and had forwarded a copy of this to the LCRO. Th...
...for two years. [16] With that long-winded but necessarily essential background, I come now to the preliminary issue which must be decided in respect of Mr Rossiter’s challenge to the Authority’s stay determination. When the plaintiff’s statement of claim was received by the Court, this raised a possible jurisdictional red flag under s 179(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) which, relating to entitlements to challenge Authority determinations, provides: (5)...