20584 items matching your search terms
Templates V15 – July 2018 page 1 –– 07/18 form 26a Legal aid file no. Tax Invoice Criminal Legal Aid Fixed Fees Schedules H & I Invoice date Invoice number GST number Lead provider’s ref. Charges/CRNs To: Legal Aid, DX Box Number City Name of aided person Name of lead provider Name of law firm Provider number Firm number Court type Court of Appeal Supreme Court Court location Details of cl...
Templates V12 – August 2017 page 1 08/17 form 24 Legal aid file no. Tax Invoice Criminal Legal Aid Fixed Fees Schedules D-F Invoice date Invoice number GST number Lead provider’s ref. Charges/CRNs To: Legal Aid, DX Box Number City Name of aided person Name of lead provider Name of law firm Provider number Firm number Court type District Court High Court Court location Details of claim Date act...
...4 Willowridge supports the removal of rules 14.5.1 (permitted earthworks activities) and Rule 14.5.2 (restricted discretionary earthworks activities). Other submitters have sought the removal of these rules and this was set out as a decision requested in the summary of submissions publicly notified by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). Anyone with an interest in these rules was therefore on notice of submitters seeking the removal of these rules and had an opportunity...
Form 5 NOTICE OF APPEAL BY PERSON CONVICTED Part 6, Criminal Procedure Act 2011 In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand – I te Kōti Pīra o Aotearoa [Name] v [R or Police or prosecutor] Name of appellant: …..…………….:………………………………………………………….. ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. Offence(s) of which convicted: …………...……………....………………...
...defendant’s case, I do not consider it appropriate to do so, despite the apparently broad powers to accept and admit evidence contained within s 189(2) of the Act. It provides that: The Court may accept, admit, and call for such evidence and information as in equity and good conscience it thinks fit, whether strictly legal evidence or not. [15] The first point is that s 189(2) does not require the Court to receive any evidence. Rather it confers a discretion on the Court. Whi...
...in its Reply the means by which Slingshot says that it forwarded the infringement notices to the Respondent. The Applicant submitted that there had been proper notification of the three infringement notices. No Hearing [23] Neither party has requested a hearing, and the Tribunal sees no need to convene one. Accordingly, the application is being determined on the papers pursuant to s.122L of the Act. Discussion and Findings Presumptions [24] Section 122N of the Act provides th...
...4 [28] He said he wished to continue providing immigration services in a limited capacity in conjunction with an unnamed licensed immigration adviser. It was not evident how this would be achieved lawfully. [29] Ms and Mr Bullent requested that their documents be returned, and they discovered that Mr Standing had taken no steps on their behalf to gain a residence permit. They complain that Mr Standing had represented that for the fee he received he would provide professio...
...do so by no later than 8 August 2014. Otherwise, the review will proceed on this basis and this Office will be in touch to schedule the first hearing. [6] Ms GH indicated agreement with the proposed procedure by letter dated 4 August 2014 and requested the opportunity to respond to further submissions made by Ms ML to the Standards Committee which Mr QE had not had the opportunity to respond to. That has been provided in the course of this review. [7] A hearing was not able to...
...evidence did not establish that to the extent that the waterbodies in question were rivers (ie streams), they were greater than 3 metres average bed width. They did not appear to be to me on my site visit. Although the water in this area clearly forms a body of water, no party seriously suggested that it was a lake, even though it was surrounded by land. There was clear evidence that the water flows (albeit at a very slow rate). I take the matter of breach of Rule 18.5.2.1 no furthe...
...decision of the [YXC] to close [location] was a mistake which had adverse consequences for members of the [City A] community. [27] It is clear that Mr EL retains an absolute conviction that both the engineering assessments and legal analysis that informed and underpinned the Council’s decision to close the centre was flawed. [28] Whilst it will become clear that I agree with the Committee’s decision to take no further action on Mr EL’s complaints, I arrive at similar conclusio...