6872 items matching your search terms
MIA NELSON v TONY WAYNE KATAVICH NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 48 [3 May 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 48 CRC 13/2013 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN MIA NELSON Plaintiff AND TONY WAYNE KATAVICH First Defendant AND HALDEMAN LLC Second Defendant Hearing: 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 September 2015 and 14, 15, 16 and 17 March 2016 (
Queenstown Lakes District Council - Private Bag 50072 - Queenstown 9348 - Tel 03 441 0499 - www.qldc.govt.nz 1 2 3.1 Step 1 – Mandatory public notification 3.2 Step 2 – Public notification precluded 3 3.3 Step 3 – If not precluded by Step 2, public notification is required in certain circumstances 4 5 3.4 Step 4 – Public Notification in Special Circumstances 4.1 Step 1: certain affected groups and affected persons must be notified 4.2 Step 2: if not require
...Mackenzie District Plan. I am aware ofthe application for declarations filed by the Environmental Defence Society. My evidence for PC13 addresses matters that are directly relevant to the questions raised by the declaration application. 3. This affidavit sets out: a. My qualifications and experience. b. A statement regarding the Code of Conduct. c. References to the most relevant parts of my PC13 statement of evidence. 4. My PCB statement of evidence is annexed marked A. Qualifi...
...Ngapakira freehold. The sublease was transferred to Digga-Bygum Ltd in 2004. One of the conditions of the sublease was a commitment to a development programme by which the estate would match dollar for dollar development expenditure by Brown Riggs. In affidavit evidence Bruce Smith claimed that proceeds from the sale of the capital stock were applied to meet the estate’s contribution towards the development programme. He also said in response to questions that some of the proceeds...
...had been used for the Courage hearing, the plaintiffs in Pilgrim wished to use the same bundle again. This would mean they could also be used when it came to dealing with liability issues in respect of the first defendant. He said that certain affidavits in volume 5 could potentially be referred to at the hearing. [58] Ms Catran, on behalf of the first defendant, confirmed that the Attorney- General reserved his rights and took no position on the majority of the disputed evidence...
IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 155 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act and Private Plan Change 28 to the Nelson Resource Management Plan BETWEEN SAVE THE MAITAI INCORPORATED (ENV-2022-CHC-65) Appellant AND NELSON CITY COUNCIL Respondent AND CCKV MAITAI DEV CO LP and BAYVIEW NELSON LIMITED Applicant Court: E
Hon Paul Goldsmith Minister of Justice Proactive release: Increasing Revenue from Courts and Tribunal Fees and Collections Services Date of issue: 4 July 2024 The following documents have been proactively released in accordance with Cabinet Office Circular CO (23) 4. Some information has been withheld on the basis that it would not, if requested under the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA), be released. Where that is the case, the relevant section of the OIA has been noted a
...the dismissal. [62] The plaintiff led no evidence whatsoever as to her losses or in support of her claim for reinstatement. When this situation was pointed out to Mr Blair, he sought leave to address it by way of an application supported by affidavit evidence. In view of my finding on contributory conduct there is no basis now for the plaintiff to seek leave to admit further evidence on remedies. Conclusion [63] The plaintiff’s challenge succeeds because the defendant has b...
...brought by Fonterra relates only to the dispute. [4] Donna Ropata, who may be affected by the outcome of this dispute, was served with a copy of these proceedings and was joined as second defendant during the course of the hearing. She filed an affidavit, prepared with the assistance of Mr Pollak, counsel for Fonterra, who called her as a witness in support of Fonterra’s case. Ms Ropata is not a member of the DWU but has an individual employment agreement with Fonterra (the IE...
...because people genuinely remember that particular version of events. This is one of the rare cases where I have no doubt that the company’s version of events was an utter fabrication. Mr Huang did not bother to appear to give evidence or provide an affidavit. He was in China. [29] I too prefer Ms Buer’s account and reject that of Mr Lai for similar reasons. [30] Mr Keyte contended that Ms Buer’s evidence as to the terms of the contract was highly suspect because, when giving...