8497 items matching your search terms
Decision No: [2011] NZREADT 11 Reference No: READT 060/10 IN THE MATTER OF of a charge laid under s.91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (CAC 10012) AND SOFIA KHAN Defendant BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Ms K Davenport - Chairman Ms J Robson - Member Mr G Denley - Member Hearing: 31 May 2011 Appearances: Mr Clancy for the Committee No appearance for or o...
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2013] NZREADT 52 READT 077/11 IN THE MATTER OF charges laid under s.91of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 10063) Prosecutor AND RAJNEEL RAJ Defendant MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Judge P F Barber - Chairperson Mr G Denley - Member Mr J Gaukrodger - Member SUBSTANTIVE DECISION ISSUED 3 JULY 2012 ([2012] NZREADT 37) HEARING ON PENALTY at Auckland on...
...gave Mr WA no reason to believe otherwise at the time. [38] There is no reason to believe Mr WA exerted any pressure on Mr HS to sign, and every reason to believe Mr HS freely signed, even if he was in something of a rush and busy with other matters. If Mr HS did not notice the absence of the $50,000, and therefore did not draw that to Mr WA’s attention, it is difficult to see how Mr WA could be held to account for that. 9 [39] The second point is that the 2013 agreement...
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2007-100-000054 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of an Adjudication Claim BETWEEN SUSAN ABBEY JONES Claimant AND ROSS SIRCOMBE First Respondent AND CRAIG ROBERTSON Second Respondent AND KAIHU VALLEY SAWMILL LTD (Removed) Third Respondent AND BRUCE JOSEPH MORRIS trading as DARGAVILLE ITM Fourth Respondent Hearing: 19 March 2008 Appearances: G.Swanepoel...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2023] NZACC 196 ACR 102/23 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN RAJAMOKAN PANCHALINGAM Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 28 November 2023 Held at: Wellington/Whanganui-a-tara by AVL Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented F Becroft for the Acci...
...the High Court. This was filed on 23 February 2021 and despite a number of follow ups with the Court the Certificate was not issued until 17 June 2021.” [22] Mr OE lodged his complaints on 28 July 2021. [23] Mr CN then responded to specific matters referred to by Mr OE: 5 • [Law firm A] may have misplaced or destroyed the file as it was more than seven years since the file had been completed. • The Court was unable to locate its file when application was made for leave...
1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2017] NZHRRT 17 Reference No. HRRT 017/2013 UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 BETWEEN LOUISA HARERUIA WALL Plaintiff AND FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant AND THE MARLBOROUGH EXPRESS Second Defendant AND THE CHRISTCHURCH PRESS Third Defendant AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Ms GJ Goodwin, Member Mr MJM Keefe JP, Member REPRESENTATION: Ms
FIRST UNION INC v JACKS HARDWARE AND TIMBER LIMITED T/A MITRE 10 MEGA, DUNEDIN, AND MITRE 10, MOSGIEL NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2015] NZEmpC 230 [17 December 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2015] NZEmpC 230 EMPC 175/2015 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN FIRST UNION INC Plaintiff AND JACKS HARDWARE AND TIMBER LIMITED T/A MITRE 10 MEGA, DUNEDIN, AND MITRE 10, MOSGIEL Defendant
NOTICE OF APPEAL 26 JULY 2018 Counsel instructed: Bal Matheson Richmond Chambers PO Box 1008 Auckland 1140 Solicitor acting: D J Minhinnick I L J Eaton P +64 9 367 8000 F +64 9 367 8163 PO Box 8 DX CX10085 Auckland BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ENV–2018–AKL - AT AUCKLAND I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO I TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE UNDER the Local Government Act (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 ("LGATPA ") and
...that Ms Campbell had succeeded on one matter and in that respect the school had behaved badly; and that any extension of the length of the hearing was a factor that would affect the quantum of costs which Ms Campbell would have to pay. These matters did not justify increasing the tariff. Turning to whether the tariff should be reduced, the Authority acknowledged Ms Campbell had suffered financially, but in part that was due to her inability to understand her employer had grounds t...