6575 items matching your search terms
MW v SPIGA LIMITED [2024] NZEmpC 147 [8 August 2024] ORDER FOR NON-PUBLICATION OF INFORMATION CONTAINED AT [106] OF THIS JUDGMENT IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2024] NZEmpC 147 EMPC 20/2023 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN MW Plaintiff AND SPIGA LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 9–10 October 2023 (Heard
...[15] In this letter, Mr Prior used the term “DHB funding” rather than the term “financial parameters” used in the original statement. The significance of this difference became apparent to the RDA in June 2008 when Dr Powell read an affidavit by Mr Prior filed in the proceedings which were then before the Authority. What Mr Prior said was that, in addition to their general funding, the DHBs had received special funding from the government which was used to settle...
...true. Obviously that cannot be so. The defendant will still need to lead sufficient evidence to prove the matters pleaded in the amended statement of defence. In the same way Mr Saipe will need to lead evidence (his suggestion of providing an affidavit will not be acceptable) to prove the matters alleged in his amended statement of claim. The fact remains, however, that unless the parties in this case are left free to choose the evidence to be adduced as they see fit to support...
...convenient to address most of them. [22] The first three numbered interrogatories (in effect, seven, once sub-questions are taken into account) all address the question of who is funding the defendant’s defence of these proceedings. [23] In her affidavit (sworn on 23 June 2015) in support of the defendant’s objection, LSG’s Marie Park deposes to the defendant funding its defence of the proceedings itself. That would be sufficient to dispose of those interrogatories but th...
...considered that the matter had been forced upon him by the Chairperson and another trustee. He did not attend Court. [7] The first hearing was held on 3 September 2014 where I adjourned the application to give time for the applicant to file a detailed affidavit of the reasons why he sought the removal of Mr Kahuroa. I indicated that I was considering a s 240 removal for him and Mr Tahata. 5 [8] The second hearing was held on 24 October 2014 and advertised in the Gisborne Heral...
...direct further research by any party, or by the Registrar from the court records: (g) direct the filing by any party of any valuation, land use, or other report that may assist the court in determining any matter in issue: (h) fix a time by which affidavits or other documents shall be filed: (i) exercise any powers of direction or appointment vested in the court or a Judge by the rules of court in respect of applications of the class with which the Judge is dealing: (j) give s...
...already set out, and the Māori Appellate Court directed that the application be heard again by this Court. The rehearing on 28 May 2013 [17] The rehearing took place before me on 28 May 2013. John Kahukiwa appeared for Moa. Mr Kahukiwa filed affidavit evidence from Moa and presented written legal submissions. [18] Mr Kahukiwa pursued a very different argument than that which he argued before the Māori Appellate Court. Mr Kahukiwa’s principal submission was that notwithsta...
...Ngae Farm Trust to replace trustees was declined. NRKC are clearly the successful party. I also note that the proceedings were conducted in a manner comparable to civil litigation, as all parties were represented by legal counsel, evidence and affidavits were filed and heard, and witnesses were cross-examined. On the face of it therefore, NRKC would be entitled to an award of costs. [14] However, one of the important principles in any costs award is the role of the Court in faci...
...go through the correct procedure. d) Applications for injunctions under ss 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) must comply with the Māori Land Court Rules 1994, rule 81 of which states that the application 18 Tākitimu MB 269 must be supported by an affidavit or statutory declaration verifying the facts and setting out any circumstances that may require urgent consideration. There is no basis for an injunction because: i. Nigel Baker and his direct antecedents have cared for the urupā...
...2011 and Chester Burt Funeral Home Ltd was to file its briefs of evidence by 17 October 2011. Subsequently, following a dispute over discovery, the Chairperson by Minute dated 13 October 2011 directed that the parties give formal discovery. The affidavits of documents of both parties were to be filed and served by 4 November 2011 with the briefs of evidence by Mr Hale following on 25 November 2011 and those by Chester Burt Funeral Home Ltd on 23 December 2011. While Chester Burt Funeral...