8026 items matching your search terms
...the Government had announced its decision to move to a COVID-19 level 4 alert, that to commence 2 days after the announcement; and (d) following the Government announcement, his sole focus was on attending to his clients’ interests and staff matters; and (e) a judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court,12 supported his argument that service by e-mail could be problematic. 12 Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12. 7 [4...
...investigate library administrative procedures. Michelle will compare these results with people's interview responses and recommend future options for managing information. Michelle's previous library work has been at the Department of Justice as Law Librarian, and at Te Puni Kokiri as Database Development Librarian. She has Scottish and Eng lish ancestry and grew up in Tau marunui and Hamilton. Michelle completed a Master of Arts (Hons) concentrating on New Zealand Li...
...AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TE WAIARIKI In the Māori Land Court of New Zealand Waiariki District AP20230009027 AP-20230000023550 WĀHANGA Under Sections 269(4) and 281, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Torere Section 64 I WAENGA I A Between GARY MAX WATSON Te kaitono Applicant ME And BRENT DAY, DAVID PETERS, JACK MIHAERE, KRIONE MAIKA, MAURICE WILLIAMS, RUSSELL MIO AND TAU REWHAREWHA THE COMMITTEE...
...facts as the complaints referred to in paragraph [1] above. Separate Standards Committee decisions followed the fees complaint and the IK complaint; those decisions are the subject of separate applications for review and Mr AW is acting in those matters also. [6] This review is confined to the Standards Committee decision with the identifying number 7854; that is to say the prosecution decision and the unsatisfactory conduct finding in relation to the terms of engagement complaint. Ba...
...shift. Mr Hamilton said that he considered that Mr Mohammed had effectively abandoned his employment. However, this stands in contrast with the advice given at the conclusion of the 6 August meeting that Mr Mohammed would take time to reflect on matters before making a decision. Mr Hamilton did not make any attempt to contact Mr Mohammed and/or his representative to ascertain Mr Mohammed’s position on the offer that had been made to him, despite being aware that Mr Mohammed was...
...Court pre-hearing conference on 3 October 2017, to pass on her communications “regarding parenting” to Mr UM, and (b) Mr NR subsequently informed her in his 20 October 2017 email that he would no longer do that, and she “must deal with these matters direct” with Mr UM.4 [12] She said although herself not aware at that time, Mr NR would have known that if she communicated directly with Mr UM she would breach the temporary protection order made on 29 June 2017. (2) Final pr...
...That might, in part, be informed by the fact that the well-resourced employer was best placed, if it took issue with the employee’s version of events, to lead relevant evidence through its own witnesses. Ultimately the Court’s task is to do justice as a matter of equity and good conscience – and the route to a just and equitable outcome may vary from case to case. [55] I return to the plaintiff’s objections in the present case, one of the key ones being relevance. In ord...
...hearing was scheduled to proceed on 14 March 2017. Mr WN had advised that he and his wife would not be attending the hearing. [9] Ms ZD became unwell on the evening of 13 March 2017. She made request of the Court to reschedule the hearing. The matter was allocated a hearing date for 22 June 2017. [10] Ms ZD left the employ of [law firm] on 2 June 2017. On her departure, Mr WN’s file was transferred to Mr FV. [11] The summary judgment hearing proceeded on 22 June 2017. The...
...was altered, even if that is what happened, such a situation would not justify continuing the litigation. The decision to refuse the plaintiff’s application for interim relief turn on assessments of the balance of convenience and interests of justice. The evidence supporting that analysis was provided by the plaintiff’s employees on Ward 5 and they fell squarely within s 84. Additionally, as Mr Cranney submitted, there is no evidence indicating that the strike by those employ...
...have taken the liberty of including the timeline provided by Mr CO with his complaint as a Schedule to this decision. [6] It is important to include here details of some of the correspondence between Mr LT and his clients towards the end of the matter: EA to LT – 17 April 2019 (11:20 am) (in response to email from Mr LT enclosing the letter from the Vendor’s solicitor waiving the condition as to title): What exactly does this mean? That titles will not be issued by 20 June?...