8472 items matching your search terms
Reference no: NZSSAA 87/22 [2024] NZSSAA 12 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 2018. AND IN THE MATTER of an Appeal to the Social Security Appeal Authority by XXXX and YYYY of Masterton, against a decision of the Chief Executive that has been confirmed or varied by a Benefits Review Committee. BEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY R Palu (Chairperson) J Ryall (Member) Hearing: Wellington, 28 March 2023 Appearances: XXXX and Y...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2022] NZACC 193 ACR 5/22 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN MALCOLM FULLER Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 27 September 2022 Held at: Auckland/Tāmaki Makaurau Appearances: B Hinchcliff for the Appellant K Anderson for the Accident Compensation Cor...
1 IN THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL CEIT-0036-2019 IN THE MATTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL ACT 2019 BETWEEN L T L and N J M Applicants AND EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION First Respondent AND TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED Second Respondent Date: Application – 29 September 2021 Submissions – 13, 20, 27, and 29 October 2021 Appearances: On the papers __________________________...
...expired in September 2016. Since that time Mr Vaughan has been acting as a delegate appointed pursuant to cl 6 sch 5 of the Act. 4 the final determination of this review as set out in this decision is made following a full consideration of all matters after receipt of Mr Vaughan’s report and discussion. [16] Mr LT QC has acted for Mr SL throughout. [17] Completion of this review has been protracted and the Office apologises to the parties for the delays occurring. Further d...
...would determine the issue of whether this claim could be amended as part of this decision. The respondents opposed any amendment. [29] Mr Carden acknowledges the history of delays by the claimants but submits that it is in the interest of justice that the matter be fully explored. He suggests that the claimants should not be disadvantaged by any faults on the part of earlier counsel. [30] I do not consider that this submission has any merit. I am satisfied that the cla...
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2022] NZREADT 24 Reference No: READT 013/2021 IN THE MATTER OF A charge laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BROUGHT BY COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE 2103 AGAINST DAVID SHARMA Defendant Hearing in Auckland on 2 November 2022 Tribunal: D J Plunkett (Chair) G J Denley (Member) F J Mathieson (Member) Appearances: Counsel for the Committee: S McMul...
...involvement as lawyer for Ms YQ’s employer. Background [2] Mr VG’s part in Ms YQ’s affairs was to advise and represent the school’s Board and a Limited Statutory Manager appointed for the Board (the employer) on employment-related matters, and to investigate the history of Ms YQ and others’ employment at the school. [3] Ms YQ had been principal of the school between [Date Period]. Her employment was suspended, and then terminated, because the employer concluded 2...
Before the Environment Court ENV-2016-AKL-000187 In the matter of: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) - Appeal against decision on proposed Auckland combined plan - s 156(1) of the LGATPA - Topics 062, 063 & 081/083 - Rule H6.6.6 Height in relation to boundary - Residential - Terrace Housing and Apartment Building Zone And: Lynne Butler, Paul Gregory, Gunn Family Trust, Lydia Hewitt, Trevor Lund...
394 Aotea MB 141 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20180006975 UNDER Sections 37, 43 and 151, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Ngātituhekerangi 23A and 22B HINA LUCY LUKE Applicant TE URAURA NGANEKO Respondent Hearing: 16 October 2018, 392 Aotea MB 169 19 December 2018, (Telephone conference) Appearances: Mr Cox for the applicant Mr Nganeko in...
...1 A statutory demand is a demand by a creditor in respect of a debt owing under s 289 of the Companies Act 1993. 3 [12] Between 12 and 29 November 2016, email communications were exchanged between Ms VR and Ms BJ about the matter. Mr VR disputed that the amount claimed was owing, questioned whether the statutory demand had been properly served, and asked why a copy of the statutory demand had not been sent to his company by email. He also referred to the possi...