5296 items matching your search terms
1 IN THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL CEIT-0068-2019 IN THE MATTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL ACT 2019 BETWEEN P J & S J Applicant AND HOLLOWAY BUILDERS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) First Respondent AND IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Second Respondent AND QBE AUSTRALIA LIMITED Third Respondent AND HFC CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL (SOUTH) LIMITED Fourth Respondent (REMOVED) A
...“work”. Given the conclusion that Mr Udovenko was paid by the day, that is not necessarily so. The Court of Appeal did not deal with this issue on appeal. Again we do not find this series of cases particularly helpful. They contain no clear statement of principle which would assist us and the facts were significantly different to those in this case. [54] Mr Quigg also relied on NZ Fire Brigades Officers and NZ Fire Brigades Employees Application For Award (1965) BA 1496 w...
...present briefs without cross-examination, I would take those briefs into account. If a conflict developed between those briefs and oral testimony subjected to cross-examination, I advised counsel that they were at risk that the briefs admitted by consent would trump the oral evidence because of their agreement not to cross-examine those witnesses. I advised them that their agreement not to cross-examine meant that they were not testing the evidence of those witnesses and they were...
...Court in Duff v Communicado Ltd6 that freedom of expression should generally be defined widely and question of limits on the right should generally be determined pursuant to section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. However, we do not consider that a statement of an individual's address is sufficiently expressive so as to attract the protection afforded by section 14. 60. The requirements of new section 97E(6)(d) do not compel any individual to disclose any opinion they hold, or to...
...the course of the hearing counsel for the respondents modified that position and it seems that the main complaint was in respect of a failure to plead the claim for mesne profits on trespass. [21] Counsel for the appellants referred us to the statement of response and counterclaim dated 16 May 2014 filed by the respondents, where direct reference is made to quantum meruit, and to an express, constructive or resulting trust. These matters were raised by the respondents themselves,...
...affecting most or all of Māoridom and requiring presentday solutions, often in the field of government policy. After reviewing the claims currently on its registry, the Tribunal grouped the issues of this kind, as raised by Māori in their statements of claim, into 11 categories. These categories are presently broad and inclusive, and some may overlap. When each kau papa inquiry begins, the Tribunal will conference with claimants and the Crown to work out more exactly the natu...
...for by the Court awarded costs. (b) The nature of the proceedings that were served on Mr RF at the conclusion of the settlement conference. (c) If the proceedings served on the day of the settlement conference were filed before Ms CN obtained the consent of the Court to be removed as counsel on the record. (d) Her response to complaint that serving proceedings on Mr RF in the Court constituted unprofessional conduct. [33] In response to that request, Ms CN: (a) Provided clarificat...
...rationale for Right to Life’s recommended approach. 3. Conscientious objection – interplay with professional standards 2010: Hallaghan v MCNZ8 In this case, Dr Hallaghan (a medical practitioner opposed to abortion) challenged a proposed statement of the Council in relation to doctors’ obligations to a woman requesting consideration of termination of pregnancy. The result of that judgment was that a doctor could refuse to refer a patient presenting for advice on terminat...
...those materials. Review Hearing [48] Mr OX attended an applicant only review hearing in [Town] on 19 September 2016. The Committee was not required to attend or be represented, and the hearing proceeded in the Committee’s absence with its consent. Analysis of review grounds First Review Ground [49] The first review ground represents a critique of the own motion inquiry process. Mr OX’s position is that his opportunity to participate has been stifled. [50] It is not cor...
...taken after the client is informed by the lawyer of the nature of the decisions to be made and the consequences of them. [64] The footnote to r 13.3 cites as an example of the application of the rule: … a lawyer should never seek or agree to a consent order without the client's authority, nor should a lawyer for the defence in a criminal trial disclose, without the client's authority, the fact that the client has previous convictions or other charges pending. [65] It will...