14809 items matching your search terms
.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 (b) An approach to the supreme Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321 (c) Petitions and other direct appeals to the government . . . . . . . . . . 322 (7) Alleged Crown interference in the court’s processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 (a) Crown agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....
CLAIM NO: 00062 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN LYNNE ROBORGH and LEON JOHN ROBORGH Claimants AND No First or Second Respondents AND STEPHEN BRIAN LAY Third Respondent AND JESSOP TOWNSEND LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Fifth Respondent AND ARCHITECTURAL WATERPROOFING LIMITED (in Liquidation) Sixth Respondent AND No Seventh Respondent AND TIMOTHY
CLAIM NO: 00136 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN ELIZABETH WAUGH BERRY, DONALD JEFFREY WAUGH BURNS and CLAIRE MARIE RYAN as Trustees of the Burns Berry Trust Claimants AND No First or Second Respondents AND STEPHEN BRIAN LAY Third Respondent AND JESSOP TOWNSEND LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Fifth Respondent AND ARCHITECTURAL WATERPROOFING LIMITED (in Liq
CLAIM NO: 00027 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN JOHN RAYMOND GRAY, DEAN GRIMMOND and SANDRA MAY BARRY as Trustees of the John Gray Family Trust Claimants AND No First or Second Respondents AND STEPHEN BRIAN LAY Third Respondent AND JESSOP TOWNSEND LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Fifth Respondent AND ARCHITECTURAL WATERPROOFING LIMITED (in Liquidation) Si
CLAIM NO: 00932 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN E L 1 LIMITED and M & H TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED as Trustees of the Eurolife Trust Claimants AND No First or Second Respondents AND STEPHEN BRIAN LAY Third Respondent AND JESSOP TOWNSEND LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Fifth Respondent AND ARCHITECTURAL WATERPROOFING LIMITED (in Liquidation) Sixth Respond
CLAIM NO: 00939 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN MICHAEL DAVID SHEPHERD, FIONNA MOANA ANNE BELL and TODD WILLIAM HUNTER as Trustees of the Bell Shepherd Family Trust Claimants AND No First or Second Respondents AND STEPHEN BRIAN LAY Third Respondent AND JESSOP TOWNSEND LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Fifth Respondent AND ARCHITECTURAL WATERPROOFING LIMITED (
...inquiry is prescribed by the Act and it is well established that an inquest is a fact-finding exercise, not a method of apportioning guilt. [48] This is consistent with the approach in other common law jurisdictions. For example, the Court of Appeal for England and Wales in Coroner for the Birmingham Inquests (1974) v Hambleton observed:32 A decision on scope represents a coroner’s view about what is necessary, desirable and proportionate by way of investigation to enable the...
...parts ofRangitoto Tuhua. The commission report explained that in every step of this process of subdivision, the Court had to progressively ascertain tribal, hapu, family and then individual interests. Necessary delays were required to dispose of appeals, or allow title to mature, or have surveys made before further subdivision could take place. At each stage further partitions might be required to recover, in land, costs associated with litigation and surveys. The Court focus for this...
...problem. It is “any other problem relating to or arising out of an employment relationship”. The expansive rather than restrictive interpretation of the phrase “relates to” in this legislation has been recently reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in Haig v Edgewater Developers Ltd & Ors (No 2).8 [36] I conclude that s 161(1)(r) gives the Authority exclusive jurisdiction to make determinations about an employment relationship problem between these parties and, in particul...
...proof. This issue becomes crucial in a case like the present where considerable reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence. The leading authority on the topic is Honda New Zealand Ltd v New Zealand Boilermakers’ etc Union,3 where the Court of Appeal reaffirmed that where what is at issue in a civil case is the alleged commission of a criminal offence, the standard of proof, while still based on the balance of probabilities, requires the evidence in support to be as convincing i...