2820 items matching your search terms
...ACT 1991 7 OCTOBER 2016 Page 2 31631884:635775 TO: The Registrar Environment Court AUCKLAND AND TO: The Appellant AND TO: The Respondent 1. Take notice that OMAHA PARK LIMITED requests to be heard under section 274 of the RMA in respect of the notice of appeal lodged by Zakara Investments Limited in relation to a decision of the Auckland Council on a recommendation of the Auckland Unitary Plan Indepe...
...1991 7 OCTOBER 2016 Page 2 31631884:635775 TO: The Registrar Environment Court AUCKLAND AND TO: The Appellant AND TO: The Respondent 1. Take notice that OMAHA PARK LIMITED requests to be heard under section 274 of the RMA in respect of the notice of appeal lodged by Man O’War Farm Limited in relation to a decision of the Auckland Council on a recommendation of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent...
...ACT 1991 7 OCTOBER 2016 Page 2 31631884:635775 TO: The Registrar Environment Court AUCKLAND AND TO: The Appellant AND TO: The Respondent 1. Take notice that OMAHA PARK LIMITED requests to be heard under section 274 of the RMA in respect of the notice of appeal lodged by Houghton Family Trust in relation to a decision of the Auckland Council on a recommendation of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent...
...MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 7 OCTOBER 2016 Page 2 31631884:635775 TO: The Registrar Environment Court AUCKLAND AND TO: The Appellant AND TO: The Respondent 1. Take notice that OMAHA PARK LIMITED requests to be heard under section 274 of the RMA in respect of the notice of appeal lodged by Kumeu-Huapai Residents & Ratepayers Association Incorporated in relation to a decision of the Auckland Council on a recom...
WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v TURNER [2025] NZEmpC 190 [28 August 2025] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2025] NZEmpC 190 EMPC 352/2025 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed in full from the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for interim injunction AND IN THE MATTER OF an application to order attendance for cross- examination BETW...
...adjacent to the Council boat ramp is an area of reclaimed land that is not recorded on the existing survey plans of the area. I understand that the Council, through Auckland Transport, administer this area, which contains some mooring holder parking, along with the adjacent road reserve containing Ocean View Rd. 21. The seaward edge (being mean high water mark) of the 8 road reserve containing Ocean View Rd is defined by a ‘wavy’ line as shown in Figure A,...
...RESPONDENT TU Limited The Tribunal hereby orders: TU Limited is to pay the sum of $150.00 to KY on or before Thursday 6 June 2019. Reasons: 1. On 1 March 2019, KY dropped her friend at the [redacted] Embassy at [address]. She parked and followed her friend inside. By the time they returned to the car, it had been clamped by TU Limited and KY had to pay a fee of $150.00 for the car to be released. 2. KY now claims a refund of the $150.00 release fee. 3. KY’s claim...
...Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. LC is not liable to pay $513.44 to Q Ltd. 2. LC’s claim that Q Ltd pay $59.00 to her is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 8 November 2024 a [vehicle] owned by LC, but driven by someone else, parked on private premises at [address]. The parks are clearly labelled ‘LAUNDROMAT PARKING ONLY, TOW AWAY’ and a sign ‘NO PARKING, PRIVATE PROPERTY, VEHICLES PARKED HERE WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF THE OWNER OF THIS CARPARK WILL BE ISSUED WI...
...will be heard by teleconference”. QT Ltd did not supply a phone number to be called for the hearing. The company website does not have a phone number. The hearing proceeded with the applicant in person. Reasons 1. On 10 May 2023 UH parked in a private car park with signage stating: ”No Parking Private Property”. He received an infringement notice from QT Ltd and a request for payment of $95.00. UH disputed the charge and paid $2.00. The amount QT Ltd demanded t...
...2024. UT transferred $500 to T Ltd. 2. T Ltd claim it did not request a payment of $500, it only required $299 to confirm the booking and the rest of the job was charged per hour. 3. UT claims the removalist did not complete the job due to parking restrictions outside his property. The yellow lines outside UT’s property meant the removalist would have to park 100 meters away. UT claims it was T Ltd responsibility to ascertain the parking restrictions. 4. T Ltd claim it inf...