Search Results

Search results for Statement of Defence.

3031 items matching your search terms

  1. Marywil Investments Ltd v North Shore Ctiy Council [pdf, 65 KB]

    ...limitation-barred because of the ten year long-stop provision in section 393(2) of the Building Act 2004. It was the 1991 Building Act that was in force at the time this home was constructed but section 91 of that Act contains an identical limitation defence to that contained in s 393(2) of the 2004 Building Act. Section s91 provides: 91. Limitation defences – (1) Except to the extent provided in subsection (2) of this section, the provisions of the Limitation Act 1950 app...

  2. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 1 v Allan [2019] NZLCDT 25 [pdf, 351 KB]

    ...Background 24 In or around 2017, Mr Allan was assigned by Legal Aid to act for P D (Mr D). In November 2017 Mr D’s was reassigned to M Z (Mr Z). 25 On 20 November 2017 Mr Z emailed Mr Allan requesting a copy of the disclosure and formal statements Mr Allan had for Mr D’s jury trial matter (the requested documents). 26 Mr Allan responded to Mr Z’s email on 21 November 2017 stating the requested documents would be in the mail on 22 November 2017. 27 On 25 January 2018 Mr Z...

  3. LCRO 87/2020 JJ v SS (15 April 2021) [pdf, 208 KB]

    ...also relevant that a client will rely on an estimate in retaining a lawyer and it often will not be feasible to cease instructing a lawyer if the estimate increases. A client must be able to reasonably rely on an estimate provided.” [49] This statement is reinforced by the statement made in the case of Kirk v Vallant Hooker & Partners [2000] 2 NZLR 156 para 49, where the Judge states: “Clients reasonably can expect that they can place faith in estimates.............” [50]...

  4. [2016] NZEmpC 154 AFFCO NZ Ltd v NZMWU [pdf, 197 KB]

    ...An interim compliance order? [1] AFFCO New Zealand Ltd (AFFCO) applied for an interim compliance order in two parts; the first seeks to restrain officers of the New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union (the Union) from publishing statements that are derogatory and critical of AFFCO and its related entities and officers; the second seeks an order prohibiting the Union from appointing a particular Union officer, who has allegedly published such statements from acting as...

  5. Ngatai v Johnson - Tokata A4 (2005) 290 Rotorua MB 19 (290 ROT 19) [pdf, 1.2 MB]

    ...call her. At the initial hearing before Judge Wickliffe, both of the Johnson brothers indicated that the transaction was "news to them". This information was not given from the witness box and cross-examination was not available. These statements seem to have been, as Mr Barber characterized, in his written submissions, a statement from the body of the Court. They must stand somewhere between pleadings and evidence but the fact remains that it is not sworn evidence tested...

  6. [2007] NZEmpC CC 3/07 Peoples v Accident Compensation Corporation [pdf, 63 KB]

    ...Respondent Judgment: 13 February 2007 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A A COUCH [1] Ms Peoples was employed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (“ACC”) for 9 years. In January 2004 she was dismissed. In September 2005, Ms Peoples lodged a statement of problem with the Employment Relations Authority alleging that her dismissal was unjustifiable. On 4 April 2006, the Authority conducted an investigation meeting. On 9 June 2006, the Authority gave its determination, conclu...

  7. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hart [2011] NZLCDT 36 [pdf, 122 KB]

    ...assertion of privilege, it was SC1 which made the resolution to lay Charge 3. Privilege [35] Practitioner raises issues based on an assertion of privilege. We consider that this assertion goes to the substance of the charge. It is an affirmative defence which ought to properly await the substantive hearing. We consider it would be improper for us to consider this issue in the absence of the other evidence to be called. Both parties are entitled to a full hearing of the evidence...

  8. RB v SCX LCRO 92/2014 (11 August 2014) [pdf, 75 KB]

    ...at [108]. 12 [77] Five months after the Committee made its first enquiry, the Committee delivered its decision. Mr RB made no efforts to comply with the Committee's requests during that period of time. [78] Mr RB provided minimal defence to the complaint that he had failed to cooperate with the disciplinary process. He referred briefly to health issues which may have impacted on his capacity to respond. He did advance, in forthright fashion, argument that he felt deepl...

  9. [2020] NZEnvC 212 Dunedin City Council v Ross [pdf, 15 MB]

    ...did not exclude the report or take no account of it, but where important points of difference arose that could in fairness have been the subject of questioning by counsel for the respondents or the Court, I have little option but to prefer other statements, particularly those tested under questioning. [23] The evidence among the ecologists was quite consistent as to vegetation types in areas on the land not cleared, indicating some preponderance of exotic weed species but possibly...

  10. [2020] NZEmpC 13 Elisara v Allianz New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 223 KB]

    ...made to Mr Elisara prior to the hearing. Two were made shortly after the Authority’s investigation meeting and prior to the substantive determination being issued, namely on 12 July 2017 and on 19 July 2017; a further two were made after the statement of claim had been filed in the Court and well before the hearing (namely on 26 November 2018 and 19 December 2018). The company says that, while it does not seek increased costs from the July 2017 dates, the first two offers may be...