5998 items matching your search terms
SALLY-KAE NOELINE FRENCH V THE WAREHOUSE LIMITED NZEmpC AK [2011] NZEmpC 38 [15 April 2011] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2011] NZEmpC 38 ARC 73/10 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF interlocutory applications BETWEEN SALLY-KAE NOELINE FRENCH Plaintiff AND THE WAREHOUSE LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 15 April 2011 (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: Mark Ryan, co
...that Mr Shetland also conceded (quite properly) that it was not appropriate for the Committee to make a determination of unsatisfactory conduct and at the same time a determination to prosecute the same conduct before the Tribunal. Although s 152 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 states that a Committee may make “1 or more” of the determinations” in that section, this needs to be viewed in the context of the prosecutorial process. If a particular matter is to be put befor...
................................................................................... 4 PART G – EARTHWORKS PROVISIONS ........................................................ 6 The alleged duplication of the PC8 provisions ................................................ 8 Ms Hunter’s proposed Rule 14.5.1.1A.......................................................... 21 The scope to include the new residential development definition ................. 25 CONCLUSION .........................
...68. The hours of operation for the Screen Production Studio activities authorised by this consent, other than in emergencies, shall be limited to the hours of 6:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday inclusive other than in the circumstances detailed in clause (b) below. No consented activities shall take place outside of these hours or on Public Holidays. Screen Production Studio activities authorised by this consent must be carried out within the following restrictions: (a) The first cre...
...given. ACC is entrusted with levy payer’s funds, and there is an expectation that where those funds are expended, they are done so judiciously. Taking into consideration the range of factors ACC must consider with funding requests, as set out in clause 2 of Schedule 1, it would be difficult for ACC to evaluate whether any particular treatment request met those criteria, before the treatment was received, and the cost incurred, without an application for funding having been made...
...current purposes, a significant change to the pre-1993 regime was that shares in a Māori incorporation changed from “personal property” to “undivided interests in Māori freehold land”. In that respect the Maori Affairs Bill 1987 observed:8 Clause 270 is of special importance. It declares that shares in Maori incorporations are deemed for all purposes to be undivided interests in Maori freehold land. Clause 271 is a corollary of the previous clause. It provides that the ali...
...to internal policies and procedures which are not Mr Gorgus’ personal information. [64] Having reviewed the Use of Force Review Forms we conclude that Corrections should (as it has already volunteered to do) release the information set out in clauses 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21 and 30 of each Use of Force Review Form. [65] We also consider that information in clauses 1, 2, 3, 24, 25, 27, 28, 36 and 37 in the Use of Force Review Forms should be released to Mr Gorgus. Corrections...
...face of her mental incompetence, and also whether it was appropriate for Lawyer X to invoice the estate of Complainant A’s mother for work done. In the course of the hearing Lawyer X 2 indicated that he was prepared to remit the bill dated 25 September 2007 for $1 743.76. Complainant A accepted that in light of this costs were no longer in issue. Accordingly the only matter for determination is whether Lawyer X was in breach of his professional obligations in taking instructio...
...face of her mental incompetence, and also whether it was appropriate for Lawyer X to invoice the estate of Complainant A’s mother for work done. In the course of the hearing Lawyer X 2 indicated that he was prepared to remit the bill dated 25 September 2007 for $1 743.76. Complainant A accepted that in light of this costs were no longer in issue. Accordingly the only matter for determination is whether Lawyer X was in breach of his professional obligations in taking instructio...
...purchase taking place and because he didn’t the trust had to pay tax it was not expecting to pay. Mr X does not accept any liability for the claim based on the terms of engagement and client care service information addressed to the trust dated 25 October 2017 (“terms of engagement”). 2. The trust is claiming $29,996.40 made up as follows: (a) Amount of reassessed bright-line tax payable to the IRD: $19,383.00 (b) Legal fees – [redacted]: