12990 items matching your search terms
...RECREATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED [2020] NZEmpC 215 [4 December 2020] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2020] NZEmpC 215 EMPC 384/2020 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to extend time to file a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN THOMAS EDWARDS Applicant AND RECREATIONAL SERVICES LIMITED Respondent Hearing: On the p...
...observation made by the Court of Appeal which referred to the Practitioner‟s charges as “excessive”. The Applicant took the view that the Standards Committee was required to take “judicial notice of the Court of Appeal’s finding that the costs claimed were excessive”. This concerned a costs order that had been made by the Court of Appeal against the Applicant who was unsuccessful in two appeal applications against decisions of the High Court. [6] The Court of Appea...
...for pursuing a challenge had expired and that: … the cash flow of the business will now be severely disrupted as income that was dedicated to critical aspects of the business will now have to be redirected to funding more litigation. [8] The claim of prejudice is somewhat diluted by the fact that the applicant’s counsel advised the respondent that Ms Atkinson intended to seek leave to challenge the Authority’s determination if her application for legal aid was granted, and no...
...matter. The decision was made under s 45(1)(c) of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 (the Act). [2] The appellant says the adviser, without her consent, intentionally inserted the wrong code number (occupation description) in a visa application which led to its failure. According to the adviser, the code used was more relevant to the appellant’s job and the application failed because her employer would not support it. BACKGROUND [3] JP is a licensed immigration advi...
LCRO 143/2012 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of a [South Island] Standards Committee BETWEEN MR UJ Applicant AND MR OO Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Background [1] This review relates to the conduct of Mr OO when he acted for Mr UJ. The assertio...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 97 APPLICANT TS FIRST RESPONDENTS BO and TO SECOND RESPONDENT THIRD RESPONDENT WU CX The Tribunal orders: 1. BO and TO are to be removed as Respondents. 2. WU is to be removed as Respondent. 3. The claim against CX is dismissed. Reasons 1. The above parties are the owners of a cross leas...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 165 APPLICANT BD Ltd RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: Please email the parties. This claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. BD Ltd introduced a potential employment candidate (UI) to a company called N Ltd in July 2020. She was interviewed by N Ltd but subsequently they were unable to offer a position at that time to UI....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 103 APPLICANT MC RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. N Ltd is to pay MC $3,690.00 by 28 March 2023 2. Once that payment in order 1 is made then N Ltd is to within two weeks or by the 11 April 2023, pick up the goods. 3. If the goods have not been picked up within the prescribed time, then MC may deliver the...
...$1,800.00 by 4pm on 7 February 2023. 2. Within 21 days of S Ltd making the payment set out in paragraph 1 above to DQ and KQ, DQ and KQ must return the umbrella to S Ltd’s store at [address redacted]. Reasons: 1. In December 2021, the applicants purchased an outdoor umbrella, along with other outdoor furniture from the respondent. The umbrella was manufactured by the TT. The umbrella cost them $1,800.00. Shelter from the sun was an important factor to the applicants in choos...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2018] NZDT 1483 APPLICANT MD Limited RESPONDENT UB The Tribunal hereby orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. UB had been a customer of MD Limited for many years, and was paying her account by direct debits of $70.00 per week. She made further purchases of $3,697.00 and $1,977.79 on 22 February 2016, and $953.92 on...