8517 items matching your search terms
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2022] NZREADT 22 Reference No: READT 029/2019 IN THE MATTER OF An appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN QQ Appellant AND THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 1902) First Respondent AND NQ Second Respondent Tribunal: D J Plunkett (Chair) C A Sandelin (Deputy Chair) G J Denley (Member) Representation: The appellant: Self-represented Cou...
118 Taitokerau MB 194 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20150006203 UNDER Section 19, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Rangihamama X3A & Omapere Taraire E (Aggregated) BETWEEN FLETCHER TAHERE, TOKO TAHERE AND CANADIAN TAHERE Applicants AND TRUSTEES OF RANGIHAMAMA X3A & OMAPERE TARAIRE E TRUST Respondents Conferences: 2 September 2015 23 November 2015 (Heard at Whangarei)...
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2014] NZIACDT 109 Reference No: IACDT 028/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 BY The Registrar of Immigration Advisers Registrar Between Wei Kai Chung and Yii Hee Lok Complainants AND Lip Funn (James) Yap Adviser DECISION IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS REPRE...
...v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZEmpC 30 [28 February 2023] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2023] NZEmpC 30 EMPC 326/2022 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN SHELLEY GOLDIE Plaintiff AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant Hearing: On the papers...
ORC – PC8 – RECORD OF PHC 23 JULY 2021 IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND of a notice of motion under section 149T (2) to decide proposed Plan Change 8: Water for Otago (referred to the Environment Court by the Minister for the Environment under s 142(2)(b) of the Act) BETWEEN Otago Regional Council (ENV-2020-CHC-128) Applicant Before: Environment Commissioner K A Edm...
...[City A] at the time she instructed [Law Firm A]. [6] Three lawyers from the firm had involvement with her file, Ms FN, Ms SA, and Ms HB. [7] Ms FN had primary responsibility for carriage of the file. [8] Ms HB’s involvement with Ms DC’s matters was modest. She played no part in the day-to-day management of the file, but had provided advice to Ms FN on an issue critical to Ms DC’s complaint, being the question as to whether Ms DC could relocate with her children from [City A]...
...understanding of the challenges of “coalface law”. This offer was never even acknowledged, let alone accepted. [26] Mr RK provided a comprehensive response to Mr ZW’s reply to his complaint on 25 March 2022. [27] I will not summarise all matters raised in reply. [28] The essence of Mr RK’s response was that: (a) it was compellingly clear that the paragraphs in Mr SN’s affidavit which had caused offence, were the product of Mr ZW’s drafting; and (b) Mr SN’s comments...
...with as part of the new multi-unit complex claim. Your point of contact regarding the multi-unit complex claim will now be your representative. The representative and the claims advisor will be corresponding with each other regarding all claim matters. Please call me on 0800 324 477 if you have any queries about the closure. [12] None of the claimants responded to this letter. [13] In February 2011, an application for the adjudication of the multi- unit claim was filed...
...dismantled the engine. Upon doing so, UU discovered that incorrect sized piston rings were present in various positions and one ring had been fitted upside down. 13. The Civil Aviation Authority (“CAA”) conducted an investigation into the matter. The CAA report appears to be based on the findings made by DT of UU. He concluded that the engine failed from oil starvation due to incorrect rings fitted to the pistons resulting in oil escaping into the combustion chambers and the engi...
...13. TC and PC say that TD failed to use reasonable care and skill to provide education to EC in terms one and two of 2020 and seek a refund of the fees they paid for those terms which amounted to $10,427.40. 14. TC and PC have raised a number of matters in support of their claim that TD failed to meet the standard of reasonable care and skill. a. TC and PC say that TD promised to deliver a world class education and failed to achieve this. They say that EC did not thrive at TD in 2...