15752 items matching your search terms
...proceedings are struck out for want of prosecution. [9] The defendant is entitled to an award of costs. A memorandum should be filed and served within 10 working days after today. If the plaintiff wishes to be heard on costs, any memorandum in response should be filed and served within a further 10 working days. A A Couch Judge Signed at 5.00 pm on 22 February 2013.
...makes reference to voluntary redundancies. The parties have also agreed that this matter will be dealt with this coming Friday. [5] A timetable for dealing with these matters has been agreed as follows. The defendant will file affidavits in response to the plaintiff’s schedule that refers to the bundle of documents and to the plaintiff’s affidavit relating to the voluntary redundancy issue and in relation to the affidavit from Mr Ross Wilson in relation to health and safety,...
...(CA). 4 [2002] 1 ERNZ 438 (CA). 5 [2004] 1 ERNZ 172 (CA). plaintiff called three witnesses and only the defendant gave evidence, Ms Moncur would have had to carefully consider the plaintiff’s evidence and ensure an appropriate response. The plaintiff has, of course, put the defendant to further expense in having to apply for an award of costs. [7] In all the circumstances the charge made by Ms Moncur’s firm of $10,122.50 inclusive of GST is reasonable. This inc...
...the subject of an exchange of memoranda, with the defendant filing and serving a memorandum together with any supporting material within five working days of today’s date and the plaintiff having an additional five working days to file any response. Christina Inglis Judge Judgment signed at 2.35pm on 30 June 2014
...necessary, but in case it is, I grant it. [4] The Crown, through the Registrar of the COUli, has endeavoured to contact the liquidator to ascertain whether he wishes to discuss processes around issues of costs to the Crown. The Registrar has received no response. [5] Messrs Brabant have recorded in this week's memorandum, that Mr R Brabant has communicated with the liquidator Mr Whittfield by email on several occasions during January 2016, making him aware of costs applications...
...generally “on the papers” – refer s.112(3). [9] The applicant then advised that he would reflect on his position and advise us within two weeks from 28 March 2013 whether he still wished to take this matter ahead. [10] There has been no response from him. One of our case managers has endeavoured to contact him by telephone and, indeed, left him a voicemail message on both 16 April 2013 and 23 April 2013. [11] In all the circumstances, we hereby dismiss the application for n...
...require ZYA to remedy the work and, if he does not do so, to have the remedial work carried out at his expense. I am satisfied that they put him on notice that he should do this and that they would first obtain a second opinion from DZ, and that his response was to require that they put his tools on the doorstep for him to collect. To me, that constitutes a refusal to do the work and ZYA should pay for the remedial work. [8] I find that the amount ordered above should be paid....
...proceedings were filed by Mr Rafiq. The Ministry submits that an award of costs of $5,000 (GST inclusive) is appropriate and represents a reasonable contribution to the Ministry’s legal costs. [4] No submissions have been filed by Mr Rafiq in response to the Ministry’s application. DISCUSSION [5] The general principles applicable to the award of costs in proceedings before the Tribunal were recently reviewed in Haupini v SRCC Holdings Ltd [2013] NZHRRT 23 (28 May 2013) at [13] t...
...that the solicitors for the plaintiff hold money sufficient to satisfy the orders made by the Authority in trust in the joint names of the parties pending final resolution of this matter. (d) The defendant is to file and serve any affidavits in response to the application for stay by 4 pm on Thursday 6 March 2014. (e) If the defendant wishes to defend the substantive proceeding now before the Court, he must file and serve a statement of defence no later than Thursday 13 March 20...
(pg) LCRO 09 /08 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING A determination of the Waikato Bay Of Plenty Standards Committee No 2 BETWEEN COMPLAINANTS N of Tirau Applicant AND LAWYER K of Hamilton Respondent DECISION Background [1] The applicants are in dispute with certain neighbours (Company T) regarding the use of land in a rural residential s