7304 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 426 APPLICANT UC RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. UC, a lawyer of [City], booked 59 return flights to [Country 1] from [Country 2] with K Ltd. For each of the flights, the flight from [Country 2] to [Country 1] was without charge because of a promotion by K Ltd in exchange for the return flight b...
...opportunity to comment before any such request is made. All are central issues in the determination of these cases. [11] In his submissions, Mr Cressey, counsel for the plaintiffs, elaborated on a number of allegations made in the respective statements of claim about the introduction and operation of the drugs policy. It is alleged that the drugs policy was introduced by Goodtime in April 2007 via the company’s Policy Manual as a “lawful and reasonable instruction” but it...
...writing. Back to top What you should bring to the hearing It is expected that both parties will have provided all information before the day of the hearing - Responding to a claim If this has not been done, a party should bring 5 copies of any written statement they want to use at the hearing. The statement should include details of the claim or defence and what happened in chronological (start to finish) order. You should also bring 4 copies of each document you want to show the tribunal that...
...finances ln November 2015; (e)Members joined with the lwi Trust to notify an AGM in November 2015; (f)Members applied for and were granted a High Court order in October 2016; (g)Trustee elections were conducted in March 2017; and (h)The Trust Board claims to represent the lwi's cultural interests in relation to the Kennedy Point Marina application, the America's Cup and a proposed 1080 drop. [28] Findings to similar effect appeared in the decision of the High Court refusin...
Preparing Claimant Evidence for the Waitangi Tribunal by Dr Grant Phillipson A Waitangi Tribunal Publication Preparing Claimant Evidence for the Waitangi Tribunal Preparing Claimant Evidence for the Waitangi Tribunal by Dr Grant Phillipson Waitangi Tribunal 2004 A Waitangi Tribunal publication isbn 0-908810-42-3 © Copyright Waitangi Tribunal 1999 Dr Grant Phillipson has asserted his right to be identified as the author of this work in accordance with the provisions of the
...direction was as follows: “Within 14 days the defendants [the present plaintiffs], or one of them shall pay in full all outstanding Costs awards payable to the plaintiffs failing which the defendants will be debarred from further defending the claims against them and statement of defence will be struck out.” [27] The unless order was not the subject of a prior written application; neither was there any reference to it in a memorandum filed by counsel for the plaintiffs for the...
...harm in the sense described. We intend addressing separately the two complaints as they are distinct from each other, although arising out of the same fraud investigation. There are two preliminary points. The delay in hearing the case [6] The statement of claim was filed by Ms Heta on 16 June 2011. Her four children were named as plaintiffs and there were five defendants. The orders sought from the Tribunal were of the widest kind, including the reinstatement of the Domestic Purpos...
...[2] On 11 December 2009 the plaintiffs applied for an urgent hearing of their application for an interlocutory injunction restraining the first defendant from dismissing the second plaintiffs who were then its employees. An amended statement of claim was filed a week later on 21 December 2009 including a fresh cause of action and reiterating the plaintiffs’ claim for urgent interlocutory relief in reliance on affidavits filed in support. The Court set down these applications for...
...December 2006 COSTS JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B S TRAVIS [1] The defendant successfully defended the plaintiff’s de novo challenge against a determination of the Employment Relations Authority. The determination dismissed his personal grievance claim that he had been unjustifiably dismissed. Costs were reserved to allow the parties time to resolve that issue between themselves in the first instance. The parties were unable to agree. [2] The defendant now seeks a contribut...
...for the broad proposal provided by Mr Lunken; selected the exterior cladding; liaised with the window designer to specify the design of the flashings; liaised with the contractor installing the glass balustrade; failed to get a producer statement for the liquid applied membrane on the roof or to ensure that this membrane was applied by an approved applicator; and failed to detect the construction defects when he was on site, in particular the lack of clearance between...