10901 items matching your search terms
Version 19 – September 2022 page 1 09/22 form 24d Tax Invoice Criminal Legal Aid Fixed Fees Schedules D, E & F: Crown Prosecutions Legal aid file no. Invoice date Invoice number GST number Lead provider’s ref. Charges/CRNs To: Legal Aid, DX Box Number City Customer Lead provider Law firm Provider number Firm number Court type District Court High Court Court location Details of claim Fixed Fee: Date fixed...
...dismissed. 10. Based on the evidence I find NQ negligently damaged N Ltd’s car and is therefore liable for the losses suffered as ordered above. Referee: DTR Morgan Date: 20 February 2024 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a reh...
...time he had been away from that work.14 Skybus relied on the terms of the employment agreement to make this decision. [12] The Authority found that Mr Maheta refused to undertake retraining.15 Instead he wrote a lengthy letter to Skybus making requests for information about minutes of 8 At [27]. 9 At [26]. 10 At [28]. 11 At [30]. 12 At [31]. 13 At [44]. 14 At [44]–[45]. 15 At [46]. the meetings he had attende...
...agreement for sale and purchase (the sale agreement) signed three months earlier on 3 March 2014 was subject to a finance condition being satisfied within “5 working days from the date of th[e] [sale] agreement”, and because the residential section formed part of land being subdivided, may also have been subject to a statutory condition.1 [4] At that time Ms SE was represented by another law firm, [Law Firm 2], who on 15 April 2014 forwarded a letter of engagement to Ms SE, and...
...September 2023 he was advised that a close family member was seriously ill. He was required to travel at short notice and booked flights to [City 1] and then attempted to book a rental car to drive to [City 2]. 2. He used the online booking platform, FS, which is operated by FB based in [overseas country]. His first booking was not able to be confirmed so he cancelled that booking and made another booking for a rental car with D Ltd. 3. A confirmation of his booking was received. H...
...[Lodge] business, and the fact that there was another similar sign on another neighbour’s property, any reasonable person would consider that the Sign belonged to XS Limited. 9. However, having carefully considering the available evidence and information, and having heard from the parties, I find that NH and UH have proved on the balance of probabilities that the Sign belonged to them. I make this finding for the following reasons: (a) It is not disputed by XS Limited that it had i...
...some improvements but was inadequate to settle past griev ances and also failed to protect the Muaū poko owners’ rights and inter ests in the years that followed. By the 1980s, Muaūpoko had walked out of the domain board, but promised reforms were never made. Perhaps most seriously, the Tri bunal found that the Crown’s actions, including its funding decisions, were complicit in the serious pollution and degradation of the lake and the Hōkio Stream. By 2010, Lake Horowhenu...
...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 389 APPLICANT IH RESPONDENT QM The Tribunal orders: QM is to pay IH the sum of $11,948.00 on or before 26 June 2024. Reasons: 1. QM listed a [car] on [platform] for $1.00 reserve. 2. IH bid on the auction. Shortly before the auction ended the two highest bids were removed, leaving IH the winner of the auction. 3. IH was concerned about the late removal of the two highest bids and ask...
...the bottom of the candle shape and are not of the quality she requires or expected. 2. ND wishes to return the candles and claims compensation of $127.00. 3. KQ stands by the quality of the candles saying they are produced in beeswax and are formed within a mold. KQ says she has offered to exchange the candles, but this is not what ND wants. 4. The Issues to be resolved are: a. Were the candles of acceptable quality? b. If not, has KQ complied with her obligations under the...
...therefore lack jurisdiction in respect of the second request.24 [80] Mr Tennet accepted that conclusion on jurisdiction but emphasised he drew this event to our attention in support of his submission that the Department’s responses to the two requests was evidence of a systemic failure to respond appropriately and lawfully to information requests. [81] We do not consider that the Department’s responses to the two requests provide an evidential foundation that supports Mr Tennet...