5996 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court - [2022] NZDT 126 APPLICANT GQ Ltd RESPONDENT OD Ltd The Tribunal orders: OD Ltd is to pay GQ Ltd the amount of $21,605.52 on or before 16 September 2022 Reason 1. The applicant owns the property at [Address]. Since 2018 it had been leased to the respondent. The applicant says it has suffered losses of $62,362.03 but has waved
...has invited the Otago Regional Council (ORC or Council) to confirm the purpose of Plan Change 7 (PC7) and whether it is a ‘process’ plan change or a process plus an ‘environmental’ plan change as this is not yet clear to the Court. 5 At an extraordinary meeting on 27 November 2019, the Council resolved to approve the development of a water permits plan change in accordance with the principles outlined as follows: (a) The focus must remain on the bigger picture – the Wa...
...[4] The complainant is LB, a national of India who first arrived in New Zealand in 2019. She studied at a private tertiary institution (the school). She completed the requirements for the New Zealand Diploma in Hospitality Management (at level 5 on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework) and was awarded a certificate on 2 July 2021. The complainant then went on to complete the level 6 diploma by December 2021 and was awarded the certificate on 1 July 2022. She has worked here for
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I MUA I TE KOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA Kl OTAUTAHI IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2020] NZEnvC 156 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of appeals under clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Act DARBY PLANNING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (ENV-2018-CHC-150) and all other appellants concerning Topic 1 of Stage 1 of the Proposed Queenstown Lakes District Plan (as set out in the Schedule attached) Appellants QUEENSTOWN LA
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2014] NZDT 1346 APPLICANT (and Counterclaim Respondent) PG Limited RESPONDENT (and Counterclaim Applicant) KH Limited SECOND RESPONDENT JC Limited The Tribunal hereby orders: 1. The claim against KH Limited is dismissed. 2. JC Limited is to pay PG Limited the sum of $8,336.11 on or before 14 November 201
...Follas having been struck out AND No Eighth Respondent, Gary Grant Boswell having been struck out AND NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL Ninth Respondent AND No Tenth Respondent, Don England having been struck out Hearing: 28-30 November 2005 Appearances: Counsel Mr Tee for the Claimants Counsel Mr Wilson for the First Respondents Mr Walden for the Third Respondent No appearances for the Second and Ninth Respondents DETERMINATION OF LIABILITY 28 April 2006 INDE...
...2011 ACTING ATTORNEY-GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEW ZEALAND BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1990: VIDEO CAMERA SURVEILLANCE (TEMPORARY MEASURES) BILL 1. We have considered whether the Video Camera Surveillance (Temporary Measures) Bill (PCO 15516/7.4) (‘the Bill’) is consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (‘the Bill of Rights Act’). We understand that the Bill will be considered by the Cabinet at its meeting on Monday, 2...
...facts to the Court as Lorraine and Matilda were children of the deceased. Is it necessary in the interests of justice to remedy the error? [18] Whether I can remedy the error turns on the terms of the will of the deceased. I note in this regard, clauses 5(a) and (b) allow for Matilda to be included. She is now deceased so her children will have to seek succession to her interests. Clause 7 allows the children of Lorraine to be included. 2025 Chief Judge's MB 103 [19...
...Plan Change 7, 18 March 2020. 5 6121072 Specific relief sought in the submission 18. The MfE submission seeks amendments to PC7 to: 18.1 Remove Rule 10A.3.2.1; 18.2 Amend Policy 10A.2.3 to remove reference to Rule 10A.3.2.1 and to remove clause (a) and (b); and 18.3 Include a new rule in PC7 that prohibits any activity that does not meet one or more conditions of Rule 10A.3.1.1 19. Following submissions and during the drafting of evidence MfE has amended its position and...
...s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). That offer was open for acceptance until 5pm on 22 February 2018. It was not accepted by Mr Butterfield. Costs in the Authority are calculated with reference to a tariff [11] Clause 15 of Schedule 2 of the Act gives the Authority a broad discretion to award costs as it thinks reasonable. [12] The Authority adopts a daily tariff in relation to costs, as it is entitled to do.3 [13] At the time Mr Butterfield lodged...