8579 items matching your search terms
GRAHAM D'ARCY-SMITH v NATURAL HABITATS LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 172 [30 September 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 172 ARC 57/14 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for costs BETWEEN GRAHAM D'ARCY-SMITH Plaintiff AND NATURAL HABITATS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: By memoranda filed on 24 August,...
...DECISION Background [1] The Southland Lawyers’ Standards Committee received numerous complaints against Ms OC(the Applicant). These came from former clients or their family, her colleagues working in the same area, and the Ministry of Justice. [2] The complaints all related to the Practitioner’s management of her law practice, her ability to take or follow instructions from clients, her knowledge of the relevant law and legal processes, and knowledge of Court procedures a...
...than in respect of the interpretation and implementation of the deed of settlement or the Act. 6. Legislative determination of a claim would not conventionally fall within the scope of judicial review [4]. However, to the extent that any excluded matters could be susceptible to judicial review, cl 13 constitutes a justified limit on the right affirmed by s 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act. Excluding subsequent challenge is a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlement of claims. 7....
...the two sets of proceedings, but concluded that although Mr FB may well have filed proceedings in the High Court, there were issues about service on Mr LK. [15] The Committee made several requests to both Mr FB and Mr LK for clarification, but matters were not able to be advanced. [16] Nevertheless, Mr LK provided a brief response to Mr FB’s complaint. Response by Mr LK [17] In his letter to the Complaints Service dated 31 August 2020, Mr LK said the following: (a) He repeat...
...further amendments before it is submitted to Cabinet, and we will provide you with further advice should this prove necessary. 3. The Bill is an omnibus piece of legislation that amends five existing pieces of legislation relating to Māori Affairs matters. The Bill: • Changes the name of the Maniapoto council of elders; • Formalises the establishment of a seventh Regional Management Committee for the Kawhia Harbour region; • Specifies a minimum voting age of 18 years for Māo...
...locked but will still be put in should ZYC and ZYB change their minds or new owners in the future consent to it. [10] Therefore, taking all of the issues into consideration, the law that applies, and in weighing up the substantial merits and justice of the case, I find ZYC and ZYB are responsible for paying a half-share of the costs to replace the boundary fence. The sum of $2,534.37 is an equal share of the cheapest quote. [11] I have allowed this amount to be payable with...
...respect of the interpretation and implementation of the deed of settlement or the Act. 5. Legislative determination of a claim would not conventionally fall within the scope of judicial review.[3] However, to the extent that any excluded matters could be susceptible to judicial review, cl 14 constitutes a justified limit on the right affirmed by s 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act. Excluding subsequent challenge is a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlement of claims....
IRITANA HOROWAI NGAWHARAU v THE PORIRUA WHANAU CENTRE TRUST NZEmpC WELLINGTON [2016] NZEmpC 46 [2 May 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2016] NZEmpC 46 EMPC 14/2014 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN IRITANA HOROWAI NGAWHARAU Plaintiff AND THE PORIRUA WHANAU CENTRE TRUST Defendant Hearing: (on the papers by submissions filed on 1 July and 14 December 2015)...
...respect of the interpretation and implementation of the Deed of Settlement or the Settlement legislation. 4 7.Legislative determination ought not conventionally to fall within the scope of judicial review. 5 However to the extent that any excluded matters could be susceptible to judicial review, the relevant clauses constitute a justified limit on the right affirmed by s 27 (2) of the Bill of Rights Act. Excluding subsequent challenge is a legitimate incident of the negotiated settlem...
127 Waikato MB 163 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT HAMILTON Hearing: UNDER A20070008668 Sections 26B-26E ofTe Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 & 180-183 of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 IN THE MATTER OF An application for Costs by David Taipari, William Peters, Pahi Tupuhi, & John Tamihere, the Elected Representatives of the Hauraki Maori Trust Board BETWEEN THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES Applicant AND 6 November 2007 THE HAURAKI MAORI TRUST BOARD Respondent Appearances: Mr...