Search Results

1. ENV-2016-AKL-000188 Lenihan v Auckland Council [pdf, 3.4 MB]

   ...(j) An electronic copy of this notice is being served today by email on the Auckland Council at unitaryplan@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz. Waivers and directions have been made by the Environment Court in relation to the usual requirements of the RMA as to service of this notice on other persons. (k) I attach the following documents to this notice: (a) A copy of the relevant decision. (b) Any other documents necessary for an adequate understanding of the appeal; mailto:unitaryplan...

2. ENV-2016-AKL-000201 Progressive Enterprises Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...Council's decision on the Recommendation ("Decision") on 19 August 2016. Parts of the Decision that Progressive is appealing 4. Progressive appeals that part of the Decision relating to minimum parking rates for retail and commercial services in the Metropolitan Centre, Town Centre, Local Centre and Mixed Use zones. Reasons for appeal Parking minimums 5. The Council Decision rejects the Panel's Recommendation for minimum parking rates for retail and commercia...

3. Marshall v IDEA Services Ltd (HDC Act) [2020] NZHRRT 9 [pdf, 434 KB]

   IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2020] NZHRRT 9 Reference No. HRRT 041/2018 UNDER THE HEALTH AND DISABILITY COMMISSIONER ACT 1994 BETWEEN EAMON HENNING MARSHALL PLAINTIFF AND IDEA SERVICES LIMITED DEFENDANT AT NAPIER BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines ONZM QC, Chairperson Ms GJ Goodwin, Deputy Chairperson Ms LJ Alaeinia JP, Member Mr MJM Keefe QSM JP, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr GW Marshall as agent for his son Ms I Reuv...

4. AQ v ZF LCRO 243/2012 (26 March 2014) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...2009, they went back to her. Ms ZF delegated the AQs’ matter to Ms RW, who provided advice and representation with respect to the police investigation into T’s allegations. Ms ZF said that she and Ms RW advised the AQs, although the legal services were primarily provided by Ms RW because her expertise better suited the AQs’ needs. [3] After the police investigation concluded with no charges being laid, Ms RW sent the AQs an invoice. The AQs paid part of the fee, but became...

5. LCRO 42/2022 QA v Kennelly (19 April 2023) [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...information on the principal aspects of client service, as required by Rule 3.4 of the RCCC; and (ii) Mr Kennelly provided a written copy of his client care and service information to Mr QA, including information about the work to be done and the way services would be provided, as required by Rule 3.5 of the RCCC. [40] The first matter addressed by the Committee, was to determine who Mr Kennelly was acting for. It said:13 12 Standards Committee determination (16 February 2022) at...

6. [2023] NZIACDT 1 - NI v Chak (5 January 2023) [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...the complainant’s response to his statement of reply. [58] In response to a request from the Tribunal, Mr Chak filed an affirmation (sworn 4 November 2022). In his affirmation, Mr Chak clarifies certain matters: 1. His office premises are serviced offices operated by an office sharing company. They changed from level 27 to level 26 of 188 Quay Street as from 31 May 2019. 2. Mr Chak says he made several business trips to Asia during 2018. He was kept up to date on parcel...

7. [2007] NZEmpC WC 10/07 Nola & Anor v Harvey [pdf, 43 KB]

   ...Nola and Mr Smith trading as D M Transport. No statement in reply was received to that. [5] In spite of directions from the presiding Authority member and other communications from the Authority support staff, including a notice of hearing and phone calls, there was no appearance for the employers at the investigation meeting which proceeded on 5 October 2006 in their absence. [6] The Authority issued its determination on 9 October 2006 at which time the 28 days for filing a chal...

8. WU v QD [2021] NZDT 1613 (27 July 2021) [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...remedy. He simply could not envisage that he had misrepresented the caravan to WU. WU explained that the quotes he obtained were from a specialist who could do the work on the caravan. He says he was limited regarding the availability of such a service provider locally in [Town B]. I find that WU has proven a loss and that it is reasonable in the circumstances. QD must therefore pay WU $10, 722.60. Referee: S. P. Kane Date: 27 July 2021. Page 5 of 5...

9. HB Ltd v NH & KX [2017] NZDT 1452 (11 April 2017) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...for his own vehicles, though he disputed the amounts. He did not advance any reason for his dispute and chose to leave the hearing after a short period. 13. BB also claimed the cost of recovery of the debt, as set out in an invoice from Credit Services (NZ) Limited for $550.92. BB’s ability to recover such costs arises because of its contractual terms with its customers, who agree to pay the costs incurred when debts are unpaid by the due date. Because KX and BB had not signed the...

10. UW v GC Ltd [2024] NZDT 245 (17 March 2024) [pdf, 117 KB]

    ...TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 245 APPLICANT UW RESPONDENT GC Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. UW purchased a [boat] from GC Ltd on 12 May 2023 for $130,000.00. The boat was to be cleaned and serviced before delivery. 2. UW states he started an 8 week, $25,000.00, “cosmetic makeover” of the boat. UW identified a crack at the base of the driver’s seat. UW contacted GC Ltd about the issue but refused to return the boat to...