12956 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1587 APPLICANTS UO NO RESPONDENT HS Limited SECOND RESPONDENT KI THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT HM The Tribunal orders: 1. HS Limited is to pay UO and NO $22,674.47 on or before 5.00pm on 12 August 2021. Reasons 1. In June 2020, UO purchased a property from HM and KI. There are two dwellings on th...
...following a four day hearing in November 2011. On 24 August 2012, a determination dealing with remedial scope was issued following a hearing on 31 July 2012, and on 21 September 2012, a determination dealing with quantum was issued. [2] Three applications for costs have been made against Hitex Building Systems Limited and Ian Holyoake. [3] The Zagorskis seek costs in respect of various interlocutory applications that were made and in respect of an aspect of Mr Holyoak...
...ORDER FOR INTERIM NON-PUBLICATION OF NAME AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS. IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2024] NZEmpC 20 EMPC 114/2023 IN THE MATTER OF an application by the plaintiff for stay of proceedings AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by the defendant for security for costs BETWEEN VXO Plaintiff AND TE WHATU ORA IN RESPECT OF THE FORMER NORTHLAND DISTRICT HE...
...They were further advised that in such circumstance it is common practice for a statement of reply to be filed out of time 3 with the extension being addressed retrospectively. It was suggested the parties assume the SDHB would be granted the requested extension. The extension application by the second defendant [7] By email dated 26 June 2018 the solicitors for Dr Mullen advised their client also required an extension of time for filing his statement of reply for the following re...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 686 APPLICANT SX RESPONDENT GO APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) K Insurance Ltd The Tribunal orders: GO is to pay $9343.84 (including a $1000.00 excess) to K Insurance Ltd on or before 31 January 2024. Reasons 1. At the first hearing, GO acknowledged liability for the vehicle collision in which SX had bra...
A v MS B [2021] NZEmpC 118 [2 August 2021] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2021] NZEmpC 118 EMPC 247/2021 IN THE MATTER OF an application for a freezing order and an ancillary order BETWEEN A Applicant AND MS B First Respondent AND ASB BANK LIMITED Second Respondent AND KIWIBANK LIMITED Third Respondent Hearing: (On the pap...
...WELLINGTON [2017] NZEmpC 28 [13 March 2017] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2017] NZEmpC 28 EMPC 233/2016 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for stay of proceedings BETWEEN JOHN ONEPU ROSSITER Plaintiff AND AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: (by memoranda of submissions filed on 7 and 15 December 2016) Appearances:...
...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...
...Appellate Court has said:4 In terms of the lower Court, it may be regarded as an order or direction that is made for the purposes of a proceeding or intended proceeding and concerns a matter of procedure, or grants some relief ancillary to that claimed in the application. [15] It is also clear that a final order is not a provisional or preliminary determination. In determining what constitutes a final order, the Māori Appellate Court has confirmed that the test is whether the judg...
...responsible for failing to lodge the appeal on time. She criticises them for lack of commitment. [4] The issues to determine are: [4.1] Did Ms Yerman discharge her professional responsibilities in identifying when the appeal had to be lodged, informing her clients of what was required to allow the appeal to be lodged, and undertaking the work required to file the appeal on time? [4.2] If not, did Ms Tully or her family act in a manner that affected Ms Yerman in her endeavours to m...