12941 items matching your search terms
...NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2021] NZEmpC 133 EMPC 343/2020 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for security for costs BETWEEN RIO NGAWAKA Plaintiff AND GLOBAL SECURITY SOLUTIONS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: R Ngawaka, plaintiff in person R Johnson, agent...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 61 BETWEEN ABN Ltd APPLICANT AND AND ZYR RESPONDENT ZYQ SECOND RESPONDENT Date of Order: 27 May 2013 Referee: Referee Dryden ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that ZYR and ZYQ are to pay ABN Ltd $463.63. Payment is to be made directly between the parties by Wednesday, 5 June 201...
...COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2020] NZEmpC 16 EMPC 213/2019 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to extend time to file a challenge BETWEEN SHAUN EVANS Applicant AND JNJ MANAGEMENT LIMITED Respondent Hearing: On the papers Appearances: N Tu’itahi, advocate for applicant M Kirkland and J Leenoh, counsel for respondent Judgment: 2 March 2020...
...5 April 2013. Facts [1] On 30 May 2012, ABZ’s daughter had parked ABZ’s car outside a friend’s house in front of the garage. While it was parked, it was impacted by ZYE while she was reversing. [2] ABZ and her insurer, ACA Ltd, claim $1,307.26 being the assessed cost of repairs. [3] ZYE accepts liability for the impact and ZYD Ltd (the Respondent’s insurer) accepts the assessment as fair for the damage incurred in the 30 May incident. However, ZYD Ltd disputes...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 169 APPLICANT B Ltd RESPONDENT R Ltd The Tribunal orders: R Ltd is to pay B Ltd $8,579.32 by Friday 17 May 2024. Reasons: 1. SD, representing B Ltd and SM, representing R Ltd both attended the teleconference hearing. The hearing was held in two parts on 17 January 2024 and on 17 April 2024. 2. B Ltd sent a LS2 engine from a...
...something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehearing, you can apply online, download a form from the Disputes Tribunal website or obtain an application form from any Tribunal office. The application must be lodged within 20 working days of the decision having been made. If you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Reheari...
LCRO 161/2016 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of Auckland Standards Committee 3 BETWEEN XS Applicant AND VS Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed Introduction [1] Mr XS has applied for a review of the determination by Auckland Standards Committee 3 (the Committee) that M...
...dated 18 March, 2 and 9 April and 19 May 2014) Counsel: M Crotty and A Service, counsel for the plaintiff L Ryder, counsel for the defendant Judgment: 8 July 2014 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL The application [1] This judgment relates to a contested disclosure issue. [2] The defendant, Mr James West, was appointed by the plaintiff, Pyne Gould Corporation Limited (PGC), as Financial Controller in June 2011, having worked for PG...
...now seeks a review of the Rakato B Residue Trust. She says the trustees have failed to properly respond to her request to build on and occupy trust land and have delayed holding meetings of owners to discuss her request. [2] Ms Puohotaua also claimed that the trustees have shared information about her request with non-owners and that they have been tardy in providing her with trust information. Overall, she argued that the trustees’ performance has been sufficiently wanting to...
...defend the proceedings brought against them in the District Court by BE. 6. As Claim 503 and Claim 19 relate to the same facts, they were heard together before me in person at the [City] Court on 1 July 2024. CN and MN attended the hearing as the Applicants. KN attended the hearing as the Respondent of Claim 503. HW attended the hearing on behalf of W Ltd, the Respondent of Claim 19, and was appointed as W Ltd’s representative. 7. This order sets out my findings in relation to bo...