14337 items matching your search terms
LAURA JANE GEORGE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 179 [27 September 2013] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 179 ARC 91/10 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed by special leave BETWEEN LAURA JANE GEORGE Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Defendant ARC 124/10 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed BETWEEN AUCKLAND COUNCIL Plaintiff AND LAURA JANE GEORGE Defendant Hearin
... ENV 2015 AKL 0000134 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND of an appeal under Clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act BETWEEN TRUSTEES OF MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST Appellant ...
BAGNALL v TDC – CONSENT ORDER IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2022] NZEnvC 37 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under section 120 of the Act BETWEEN JAMES and PHILLIPA BAGNALL (ENV-2021-CHC-83) Appellants AND TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent AND INTEGRITY CARE GROUP LIMITED Applicant Environment Judge J J M Hassan – sitting alone under s279 of the Act In Chambers a...
...determination, which is challenged, is effectively a decision that Mr Young’s proceedings were an abuse of process in the sense that they were an attempt to re-litigate a case that Mr Young had already lost on its merits and which he also failed to appeal within time. Those exceptional circumstances make it just to make an order for security for costs but that must be for a realistic amount. [15] Mr Young has estimated that the hearing of the challenge will take three days. In t...
...Ltd [1970] NZLR 58 it has been accepted that if the application is to be successful, the applicant must commence by proving the three factors listed. [9] The essential nature of what is in the interests of justice was illuminated by the Court of Appeal in Commerce Commission v Giltrap City Limited.3 2 [1992] 2 NZLR 244 at 248 3 (1997) 11 PRNZ 573 at 579 In cases of delay and alleged want of prosecution, the right of all citi...
...evidence introduced in the form of hearsay by Ms Coy and other witnesses for the plaintiff. [9] Although, when I asked Mr Fairclough bluntly what would be the consequences if I declined the adjournment application, counsel told me that he would appeal that decision, that is no reason for granting the adjournment. Rather, I do so because I consider that the practical consequence of not doing so would be to put at risk the whole of the plaintiff’s case. Put another way, it would n...
...that he believes that a requirement to pay $18,750 could jeopardise the ability of the plaintiff to continue trading. Mr Bellamy then suggests that, if it was required to make such a payment, the plaintiff “may also not be able to pursue its appeal”. He does not explain in any detail the basis for these beliefs other than to refer generally to the plaintiff’s financial position. [6] In his submissions, Mr Brito begins by referring to the essential principles I applied in N...
...We take as a starting point a fine of $1,000 but discount that for the admissions by the two defendants and fix $600 as being the appropriate penalty. [17] In accordance with s 113 of the Act the Tribunal advises the parties of the right to appeal this decision to the High Court pursuant to s 116 of the Act. DATED at Wellington this 24 th day of June 2011 ______________________________ Judge M Hobbs Chairman...
...Relations Act 2000 is supportive of this approach. [8] The plaintiff accepts that a dispute existed between the parties as at the date the correspondence was written. [9] In D F Hammond Land Holdings Ltd v Elders Pastoral Ltd 2 the Court of Appeal held that: 3 The privilege attached to “without prejudice” communications is based to a large degree on considerations of public policy. It is intended to encourage and facilitate the negotiation and settlement of disputes, by...
...that in the circumstances of this case both charges should be heard together. The Tribunal therefore dismisses the strike out application for Charge 2. [14] In accordance with s 113 of the Act the Tribunal advises the parties of the right to appeal this decision to the High Court pursuant to s 116 of the Act. DATED at WELLINGTON this 21st day of December 2012 ______________________________ Ms K Davenport Chairperson ______________________________ Ms J Robson Me...