2843 items matching your search terms
...Third Respondent AND NEW SPACE LIMITED Fourth Respondent Hearing: On documents filed without notice to respondent and in Chambers on 23 May 2016 Appearances: T Drake and M Donovan, counsel for applicant Judgment: 23 May 2016 Reasons: 24 May 2016 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] These are the reasons for the judgment of the Court, issued urgently and without notice to the respondents, on Monday 23 May...
...AND HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent Hearing: On the papers Appearances: A Halse, advocate for the applicant Appearance excused for the first respondent M Hammond and K McLuskie, counsel for the second respondent Judgment: 17 November 2023 COSTS JUDGMENT OF JUDGE J C HOLDEN [1] In the Court’s judgment dated 6 September 2023, leave was granted to Hamilton City Council to apply for costs.1 It attempted to reach agreement with Mr R...
...none the less statute barred on the same basis as the major part of the cause of action in contract………. A cause of action accrues when every fact exists which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support its right to the judgment of the Court: see Williams v Attorney-General [1990] 1 NZLR 646 at p 678. The conventional view is that the cause of action accrues as soon as any actionable damage has occurred, in spite of the fact that further actionable damage mig...
CLAIM NO: 1276 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN DAVID JASON HARTLEY and FLEUR DIANE HARTLEY Claimants AND No first respondent, Jack Balemi having been struck out AND BRENT BALEMI Second Respondent AND MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL Third Respondent AND No fourth respondent, Brent Warren Lee having been struck out AND No fifth respondents, Grace Kit Ha Mak and Wong & Bong Trustee Co Ltd h
GIBBS V TE RUNANGA O NGATI TAMA MLC 274 Aotea MB 47 [26 October 2011] IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT 274 Aotea MB 47 (274 AOT 47) A20040005718 A20070011279 UNDER Section 338(2), Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Part Lot 2 & Lot 1 DP 4866 (TNK 4/901) and Section 1 SO 10359 CT TNK 4/792 BETWEEN RUSSELL GIBBS AND PARANI GIBBS Applicants AND TE RUNANGA O NGATI TAMA First Respondent AND NEW PLYMOUTH DISTRICT COUNCI
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Hearing at: Court: Appearances: Decision No. [2015] NZEnvC lOS IN THE MATTER of an appeal pursuant to clause 14(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) in relation to proposed changes to the Waikato Regional Policy Statement BETWEEN AND OPOUTERE RATEPAYERS AND RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION (ENV-2012-AKL-000253) Appellant W AIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent at Hamilton, 23 October 2014; 18 November 2014 and s
...TALBOT Plaintiff AND NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTS' ASSOCIATION INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INC Defendant Hearing: 23 June 2011 (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: Plaintiff in person Richard McCabe, counsel for defendant Judgment: 29 June 2011 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] The issue in this challenge from a determination 1 of the Employment Relations Authority is whether the defendant‟s (the Union‟s) Rules preclude reconsideration of a d...
...290-337) 9 November 2015 (109 Waikato Maniapoto MB 173-201) (Heard at Hamilton) Appearances: Mania Hope and Maria Graham in person Jane Stevens in person David MacPherson in person G Jones, Counsel for Waikato District Council Judgment: 23 November 2015 RESERVED JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF JUDGE S R CLARK Copies to: Mania Hope and Maria Graham – By e-mail Jane Stevens and David MacPherson – By e-mail G Jones, Waikato District...
...IN THE MATTER OF Motatau 1B3A KAHUI PAUL Applicant Hearings: 18 June 2007 26 November 2007 18 March 2008 22 July 2008 18 September 2008 21 November 2008 29 September 2009 16 March 2010 14 October 2010 (Heard at Whangarei) Judgment: 29 October 2010 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER Introduction [1] Motatau 1B3A was formerly Māori freehold land. It was created by partition order dated 21 October 1914 and comprises 24.4430 hectares. On 18 April 196...
...[42] This case presents something of a conundrum. Mr Ragg’s correspondence was before the Courts. Neither Osborne J (in the High Court) or the members of the Court of Appeal, commented on the content of Mr Ragg’s emails. Consequently, those judgments do not assist greatly in reaching a view in this instance. However, the fact that neither Court made any comment would suggest that none of the Judges found the correspondence to be objectionable. 11 [43] Balanced against...