12972 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 357 APPLICANT J Ltd RESPONDENT PE Ltd The Tribunal orders: PE Ltd is not liable to pay J Ltd the sum of $6,790.75 for the amount of J Ltd’s final invoice for flooring work. Reasons: 1. PE Ltd owns a property in [location], it is occupied by its director and shareholders, KN and NT. In early 2023 KN contacted J Ltd regard...
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2022] NZLCRO 118 Ref: LCRO 145/2021 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [x] BETWEEN AZ Applicant AND BY Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed Introduction [1] Mr AZ has applied for...
...A Sharma, counsel for plaintiff K Dunn and A Smith, counsel for defendant Judgment: 14 May 2014 COSTS JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M E PERKINS [1] On 11 December 2013 I issued a judgment in respect of Mrs Gazeley’s substantive claims for permanent reinstatement and other orders. 1 Mrs Gazeley was successful in her dismissal claim to be reinstated and there were further orders relating to reimbursement of wages, other benefits and compensation. The defendant, Ocea...
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2018] NZIACDT 46 Reference No: IACDT 002/16 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 (the Act) BY The Registrar of Immigration Advisers Registrar BETWEEN Nilesh Govind Complainant AND Ashwini Chandra Adviser DECISION REPRESENTATION: Registrar: Ms C Pendleton, lawyer,
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 179 APPLICANT AND COUNTERCLAIM RESPONDENT KK RESPONDENT ANDS COUNTERCLAIM APPLICANT UW Ltd The Tribunal orders: KK is to pay UW Ltd $402.00 by 20 October 2022. Reasons: 1. Between February and March 2022, UW Ltd provided veterinary services for KK’s [horse]. She has withheld $402.00 from the invoices. Sh...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 589 APPLICANT BI RESPONDENT LU APPLICANT'S INSURER BC Ltd RESPONDENT INSURER UV Ltd The Tribunal orders: Application dismissed. Reasons On 15 August 2022, a fire broke out at the respondent’s home that spread to the applicant’s home next door, causing damag...
...RECEIVERSHIP) NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 151 [18 August 2014] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 151 ARC 39/13 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to challenge out of time BETWEEN MIA NATHAN-JOYCE Applicant AND SILVEROAKS GROUP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Respondent Judgment: 18 August 2014 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] The applicant’s application for leave to challenge out of time is...
...issues to be considered afresh. See Alpine Energy Ltd v Human Rights Review Tribunal [2014] NZHC 2792 at [34]. This was because in determining whether a discovery order should be made in respect of the documents for which confidentiality has been claimed by Alpine Energy, the Tribunal failed to consider whether the documents were both relevant and sufficiently probative to the issues raised by Mr Waters to overcome the confidentiality interests sought to be protected by Alpine Energy....
...doing this, I have applied s 108(11), which provides that the procedure of the Authority shall, subject to the Act, be as the Authority determines and s 108(10), which provides that proceedings before the Authority shall not be held bad for want of form. [9] Section 110(3) provides that where an application is made for an adjournment and the Authority, in the interests of justice, considers that the adjournment should be allowed but that the adjournment will cause inconvenience to the a...
...representatives”.19 (b) Outside a lawyer-client relationship [53] A duty of confidence may also arise for a lawyer outside a lawyer-client relationship. That is, where the lawyer does not act for the person from whom the lawyer receives information, and who claims confidentiality. [54] In such circumstances, r 8.8, referred to by Dr OR in her application for review, requires that a lawyer: must not breach or risk breaching a duty of confidence owed by the lawyer that has aris...