12971 items matching your search terms
...105/2010 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee Number 2 BETWEEN AQ of Auckland Applicant AND ZI of Auckland Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Background [1] In July 2008, the firm of AAM (AAM) was instructed by the Applicant on...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1582 APPLICANT in the claim JT RESPONDENT in the claim SN APPLICANT in the counterclaim BI INSURER of the APPLICANT' in the claim JB Ltd The Tribunal orders: SN is to pay $5,806.50 to JB Limited by 7 August 2021 or by payments if JB Limited agrees. Background 1. On 21 February 202...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 347 APPLICANT AF RESPONDENT FG SECOND RESPONDENT TI The Tribunal orders: 1. AF is to pay FG and TI $3,314.08 on or before 31 May 2024. 2. AF is the owner of and is entitled to possession of [the dog]. 3. FG and TI are to make [the dog] available to be collected by AF or her nominee no later than three working days af...
...of $1,500 towards its legal costs in opposing the plaintiff’s claim for costs. As to the union’s claim for costs on the challenge, it has been made well beyond the 2-month period allowed for doing so and although an extension of time is now requested, no reasons for the delay have been provided as are expected in such circumstances. That claim strikes me as a makeweight and tactical, and is refused. [5] I deal first with the question of costs in the Employment Relations Authori...
LAURA JANE GEORGE V AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL NZEmpC AK 24 March 2011 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2011] NZEMPC 25 ARC 91/10 IN THE MATTER OF special leave to remove proceedings AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for proceedings to be tried at the same time or one immediately after the other BETWEEN LAURA JANE GEORGE Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Defendant ARC 124/10 AND IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed AND IN TH...
...significantly and may have also impacted upon the discovery exercise. However, it is only because of the way in which the legislature has approached the matter in the Employment Relations Act 2000 that litigation involving both contractual and tortious claims against the same ex-employees and the company they may have formed are not heard in the same court. Some of the difficulties that are presented by the parallel proceedings in this case would have been avoided if they all coul...
...and/or irrelevant. The next ground is: “The defendant is not entitled to claim litigation privilege in relation to particular documents detailed in the Schedule”. Next, the plaintiff says that the documents in respect of which privilege is claimed “are not properly described”. Penultimately, the plaintiff says that the defendant has waived privilege in particular documents listed in the schedule. Finally, the plaintiff says that the information contained in those document...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 111 APPLICANT NN RESPONDENT SG Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. SG Ltd is to pay NN $4,643.99 on or before 6 March 2024. 2. The remainder of the claim is dismissed. Reasons Introduction 1. In early October 2023, NN’s [ute] (‘the ute’) was taken to SG Ltd with a suspected blown head cylinder. NN was informed the repair would cost...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 387 APPLICANT SM RESPONDENT BN SECOND RESPONDENT NN The Tribunal orders: 1. NN is to pay SM $500.00 on or before 26 June 2024. 2. The claim against BN is dismissed. Reasons: 1. SM purchased a vehicle from NN, whose mother, BN, was selling it on her behalf. 2. At the time of advertising the car it did not have a war...
...of the evidence of a witness who was very unwell and the arrangements that were made for that evidence to be taken on Tuesday 5 October 2010. That witness sadly passed away on 16 September, but in the plaintiff’s affidavit in support of the application for further and better discovery, sworn on 12 August 2010, Mr Miller annexed an affidavit of that person, Mr Young, which was sworn on 29 May 2008. [2] Mr Rooney, counsel for the defendant, has indicated that objection will be...