1347 items matching your search terms
MIA NELSON v TONY WAYNE KATAVICH NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 48 [3 May 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 48 CRC 13/2013 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN MIA NELSON Plaintiff AND TONY WAYNE KATAVICH First Defendant AND HALDEMAN LLC Second Defendant Hearing: 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 September 2015 and 14, 15, 16 and 17 March 2016 (
Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2010-100-32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57 BETWEEN BOAC Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND HUGHES & TUKE CONSTRUCTION LTD Second Respondent AND DAVID CHARLES TUKE Third Respondent AND DAVID B MCGLASHAN Fourth Respondent AND RRL GROUP LIMITED Fifth Respondent AND BARRY RUSSELL BROWN (Undischarged Bankrupt) Si
[BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC f /6 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act KUMEU PROPERTY LIMITED (ENV-2017 -AKL-044) Appellant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge JA Smith, sitting alone pursuant to s 279, in chambers at Auckland Counsel: RE Bartlett QC for Kumeu Property Limited D Hartley and M Matich for Auckland Counc
Wai 2200 Ngātiawa / Te Āti Awa Research Needs Scoping Report Tony Walzl WALGHAN PARTNERS 18 January 2016 Wai 2200 Porirua ki Manawatū District Inquiry Report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal Wai 2200, #A186 camerja Official camerja Received camerja Text Box 18 Jan 2016 2 Contents INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZLCDT 26 LCDT 008/12 BETWEEN NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE No. 1 Applicant AND FRANCISC CATALIN DELIU of Auckland, Lawyer CHAIR Ms M Scholtens QC MEMBERS OF TRIBUNAL Ms S Hughes QC Ms J Gray Mr W Smith Mr P Shaw HEARING at Auckland DATE 30 September – 9 October, 10 December 2015 (with LCDT 010/10) DATE OF DECISION 15 September 2016 APPEARANCES Mr
...hindsight he should have liquidated the company instead of trying to help. He claimed his actions saved the money for the clients, whereas the liquidation would have failed to return any funds to us. 1.13 Having reviewed this statement today and checked the companies office I am reminded that the company did go into liquidation. I find that contrary to the statements and message that John was conveying on the call and at our meeting although I did not raise this with him directly as...
...again urge you to seek legal advice. Regards John Schlooz Barrister; (e) In the same context, in an email on 13 June 2019 at 08:03: Why would any right thinking person seek advice from someone who clearly despises them? You really need a reality check cause you’ve lost it. Regards John Schlooz Barrister; (f) In the same context, in an email on 13 June 2019 at 12:45: You half-wit. The agreement cannot be varied because it is cancelled. Regards John Schlooz Barrister; (g)...
...what he was doing MIGHT amount to a relevant contravention, there is no need to go further and establish that the solicitor foresaw the contravention as “probable”; it is enough that he foresaw it as “possible” and then went ahead without checking. That was how the relevant concept of “recklessness” was approached by Bramwell, J in Lewis, as drawn upon by Kitto, J in Neale Edwards, and I think it must be so here too. Iannella demonstrates that the word “wilful” or “wil...
...her statement of claim, or in the statement of reply, that Dr Sawyer complained to the Commissioner about, or that the Commissioner investigated, either any failure to correct the allegedly fabricated information (IPP 7) or any failure by VUW to check allegedly false information before using it (IPP 8). There is no indication in Dr Sawyer’s statement of claim, or in the statement of reply, that any alleged breaches of IPPs 1, 3, 4, 5, or 11 were complained of to, or investigated...
IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY I MUA I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE ENV-2023-WLG-000005 Under the RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 In the matter of the direct referral of applications for resource consents and notices of requirement under sections 87G and 198E of the Act for the Ōtaki to North of Levin project By NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY-WAKA KOTAHI Applicant JOINT STATEMENT OF PLANNING EXPERTS 10, 11 and