18328 items matching your search terms
...Appearances: S Hepburn for the applicant Judgment: 29 February 2016 INTERIM DECISION OF JUDGE L R HARVEY Solicitors: Ms Samantha Hepburn, CS Law PO Box 541, Levin 5540 349 Aotea MB 29 Introduction [1] Caroline Cross seeks orders concerning the ownership and status of the Horowhenua 9A6B1 block. The Court’s records confirm that Martin and Victoria Hartley are joint ad...
...government agencies accountable. Omāhu Crown/Māori Relations hui notes (22 April) Page 5 of 5 • Local Government - Many speakers recommended that Māori need to be regarded as a Treaty partner by local government (which means the law needs to change). To avoid commitments and policies collapsing when they are transitioned to local government the Government needs to monitor the commitments and hold local government accountable. Māori/iwi need to be represente...
...on 15 February 2013, discussing the complainant’s employment and reiterating it was his employer’s policy not to issue an Employer Supplementary Form; Immigration New Zealand declined the visa request, and the complainant was in New Zealand unlawfully without a current visa. [5] The Registrar identified potential infringements of professional standards during the course of Mr Kumar’s engagement, the allegations were that potentially: [5.1] Mr Kumar breached clauses 2.2 and 3(f) of...
...deceitful conduct against Mrs Prins and the firm of solicitors whom she first approached to represent her. I agree that these outlandish expressions of opinion should not have appeared in a brief of evidence prepared by an experienced employment law advocate, however fervently and sincerely the beliefs may have been held by Mr Walters. But, eventually, common sense prevailed and the brief was not used and the allegations, or at least the most egregious of them, were not made in Co...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 202 APPLICANT DN RESPONDENT SC The Tribunal orders: The claim by DN is dismissed. Reasons 1. DN bought a pair of shoes in December 2023 with which she is not happy. She seeks a refund and other compensation on the basis the shoes are not of acceptable quality nor properly fitted in breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993.
...grounds: that the application was made well outside of the 21 days required by the Act; that the applicants had failed to establish that the application could not have reasonably been made sooner; that the applicants failed to establish a procedural flaw when the earlier order was made; and that the applicants failed to demonstrate a substantive case for re-opening the hearing. [9] She further contended that in the context of notice the Maori Land Court Rules 1994 had been complied...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 161 APPLICANT UW RESPONDENT XG Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim and the counterclaim are both dismissed. Reasons: 1. UW ordered a custom built gate from XG Ltd. UW says that the gate that XG Ltd installed is not the one he asked for. UW asked XG Ltd to take the gate away, which it has done. UW seeks an order that XG Ltd is lia
...also made submissions on the effect of the will of Mr George Smith (Senior) and whether the homestead on the Tuahu 6 block was matrimonial property. He also submitted that, if a rehearing is granted, a site visit is warranted. Te Ture The law [14] The following principles apply to an application for rehearing:2 2 Henare v Māori Trustee – Parengarenga 3G [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 1 (2012 APPEAL 1), cited with approval in White v Potroz - Mohakatino Parihihihi No 1c...
...ZXY considered that LR was effectively the boss of the situation and is responsible for what happened. I disagree. ZXY has the onus of establishing that LR took over the situation or caused the loss by giving a demonstration. As a matter of law, CK remained ZXY’s responsibility, as his employee, regardless of LR’s assistance. Also, I could not find that LR assisted CK incorrectly. The parties did not agree about the timing of LR’s demonstration. ZXY said it happened befo...
...not respond to them. They said that TD knew they felt some urgency in starting the work, so expected him to contact them if he disagreed. As he did not, they thought it must be ok. 17. While this is an understandable response from OT and TT, the law says that you have to communicate your agreement to the other party. In other words, OT and TT could not assume that they had an agreement from TD if he did not directly tell them that he was happy to pay for half of the fence. 18. OT an...