18328 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 553 APPLICANT UC Limited RESPONDENT BD Limited The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. UC Ltd was represented at the hearing by SX and BD Limited was represented by HT. 2. UC Ltd laid concrete supplied by BD Limited on a driveway of a property which was a development done by UC Ltd. UC Ltd says there w
...b. Was there a failure to produce the outcome made known, or a failure to produce the outcome within the agreed timeframe? c. If not, what is the remedy? Who supplied the services and who were the contracting parties? 9. The common law of contract and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) apply. 10. JL’s position is that she engaged the company then known as Company P Limited to supply the services. In support she says that the Director is QV and that she spoke with h...
...No………………………….. FORM 5 – DEPORTATION APPEAL CANCELLED REFUGEE AND PROTECTED PERSON – 3/03/2025 Page 2 of 10 Step 3. Your representative’s details If you do not have a representative, you do not need to complete this step. Note: Only a lawyer, licensed immigration adviser, or a licence-exempt person can act as a representative. See the types of licence-exempt person below. Representative’s name: Title: Mr Mrs Ms Miss Mx Dr O...
...for your letter dated 17 June 2016 confirming that Reading's Senior Management Committee has resolved to recommend to its Board to move forward with the Bayfair project. On the basis of that confirmation, I have now instructed solicitors BSA Law to prepare an Agreement to Lease and Lease documentation reflecting the terms of the Bayfair Heads of Agreement supplied by Reading and dated 7 December 2015. In addition, the lease documentation will reflect those further terms that have be...
...reviewer, however, found that what Mr Stryder was essentially asking him to do was sit in appeal to the District Court decision. The reviewer found that in essence Mr Strider's position was a submission that Judge McGuire had made an error in law in not addressing the matters he was now raising. The only available pathway for that argument was further appeal of the District Court decision to the High Court. [19] On 28 November 2023, outside the statutory time frame, Ms Howell...
...issues around freshness of the evidence in terms of the substantive issue at review. The Corporation will abide the Court’s decision. [5] On 14 November 2024, Mr Dixon-McIver provided a response to the Corporation’s submission. Relevant law [6] Section 151 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act) provides: (1) An appellant brings an appeal by sending a notice of appeal to, or filing a notice of appeal in, a specified registry. ... (3) The notice must be receiv...
...unreasonable delay. On 28 February 2023, the Reviewer dismissed the review for want of jurisdiction, on the basis that the Corporation had made a determination on the entitlement sought. [15] On 3 March 2023, a Notice of Appeal was lodged. Relevant law [16] Section 134(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act’) provides: (1) A claimant may apply to the Corporation for review of – (a) … (b) any delay in processing the claim for entitlement that the claimant...
...filing arises. [4] On 13 January 2025, Ms Arnold for the Corporation submitted that there was no prejudice to the Corporation caused by the late filing, and the Corporation did not oppose leave being granted to file the appeal late. Relevant law [5] Section 151 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act) provides: (1) An appellant brings an appeal by sending a notice of appeal to, or filing a notice of appeal in, a specified registry. (2) The notice must be in the pre...
...Court. It states in respect of fees: “This is on a contingency basis, i.e. if you win the case you will pay me half of any awards you receive (including my legal cost). … You pay the court fee of $72 and any loss if you fail.” It is not unlawful for fees to be charged on a contingency basis.20 However, it is not entirely clear whether the engagement letter allows Mr Young to take 50 per cent of any award plus all of the legal costs or whether it only allows him to take 50 p...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 760 APPLICANT QC APPLICANT U Body Corporate RESPONDENT NS The Tribunal orders: 1. This is a final order under the Fencing Act 1978 to determine the dispute between the parties. The Tribunal notes an interim order was issued dated 9 September 2024 (“the Interim Order”). In the interests of clarity in these circumstances, the f