7491 items matching your search terms
TYRONE WAYNE UNDERHILL v COCA-COLA AMATIL (NZ) LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2017] NZEmpC 117 [29 September 2017] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2017] NZEmpC 117 EMPC 336/2016 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN TYRONE WAYNE UNDERHILL First Plaintiff AND KANE JOSEPH UNDERHILL Second Plaintiff AND COCA-COLA AMATIL (NZ) LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 12 June 2017 (Heard
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 237 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act VIEW WEST LIMITED Appellant (ENV-2017-AKL-0001S1) AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J A Smith Environment Commissioner ACE Leijnen Environment Commissioner W R Howie K G Stevenson (Special Advisor) Hearing: at Auckland 26-30 November
...Musa’s costs of prosecuting his claims against Mr Solomon. [3] For a claim for penalties that could not, at best or worst, have amounted to more than about $10,000, the plaintiff and the second defendant have expended significant sums on legal fees. That is partly because of the way in which the proceeding went. Mr Musa’s claims were originally brought in the Employment Relations Authority but removed to this Court. They were then for substantial sums of damages, more than...
...Musa’s costs of prosecuting his claims against Mr Solomon. [3] For a claim for penalties that could not, at best or worst, have amounted to more than about $10,000, the plaintiff and the second defendant have expended significant sums on legal fees. That is partly because of the way in which the proceeding went. Mr Musa’s claims were originally brought in the Employment Relations Authority but removed to this Court. They were then for substantial sums of damages, more than...
...their voting proposals with the Court. As soon as I became away of the inordinate delay that had 1 See the Mäori Purposes Act 1943 and amendments 26 Takitimu MB 66 occurred with this file I directed the case manager to liaise with counsel to arrange as hearing without delay and in due course this was done on 31 July 2013. Submissions [7] By memorandum dated 7 August 2013 counsel confirms that traditionally the trust ha...
...that Mr Taiapa can provide to the defendant at no cost to it which, in turn, would represent a saving of expenditure by it. That would be not unlike arrangements that are sometimes made by parents of children unable to afford their schools’ fees or, indeed, like the arrangements for volunteer community work that act as a form of reparation in other courts. The Employment Court has no power to direct such arrangements but that would not stop the parties agreeing to make them and...
...assessor’s report. Two reports arranged by DBH were relied upon before the Tribunal identifying a number of defects causing water ingress and that the cost of remediating the damage would be $106,221.00 including GST plus the cost of professional fees. Decision Is the claim time-barred? The parties did not refer to s 37 of the Act which provides a special approach to limitation periods. This claim was therefore treated as abandoned. Was the house a commercial building? Th...
...striving to achieve an imposing building. He assumed the responsibility of the project management and supervision by taking on the role normally undertaken by an architect. By engaging Mr Jarman as a labour-only contractor, thus saving the supervision fees and margins payable when the builder is hired to take overall responsibility for a project, he came to shoulder this responsibility. The Tribunal therefore concluded that Mr Olsson has liability due to his negligence as the supervisi...
...am not able to apportion responsibility between them for the payment of the awarded amount. If any of the liable respondents wishes me to make an order they should give notice to the other respondents and the Tribunal by 21 December 2011 and file affidavit evidence in support by 31 January 2012. The other Page 9 respondents will have 15 working days to reply and then, if justified, an apportionment can be made. [40] Apportionment issues do not affect the respondents’ lia...
...rather were a result on the part of AEU who wrongly paid the funds to QC. [12] Two other arguments are raised on review. First, that the omission to pay the $1,000 bequest was an error of an unnamed solicitor in the firm who was handling the file and not of Mr JY. Second that his co-trustee refused to make payments under the power of advancement to Ms QD. [13] Mr JY has accepted that there was an oversight in respect of the payment of the $1,000 legacy and has apologised for th...