12730 items matching your search terms
...VINCENT OLIVER v STUART DALE BIGGS [2024] NZEmpC 219 [19 November 2024] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2024] NZEmpC 219 EMPC 261/2024 IN THE MATTER OF an application for a sanction AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file amended pleadings BETWEEN DARREN VINCENT OLIVER Plaintiff AND STUART DALE BIGGS Defendant Hearing: On the papers...
...Solicitors’ Letter. [12.5] The PMARS Letter. [12.6] The Counsellor’s First Response. 3 The counsellor in this case was a contracted provider with PMARS. PMARS and its contracted providers liaise with ACC case managers in connection with ACC claims processes. 4 These reasons are set out at [95] below. 5 Within the 20 working days by which a decision was required to have been made as to whether a request was to be granted under s 44(1) of the Privacy Act 1993 (PA). 4 [1...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1391 APPLICANT UB and DB RESPONDENT ND T/A ON The Tribunal orders: ND trading as ON is to pay $3078.88 to UB and DB on or before 19 November 2020. Reasons 1. In March 2018 DB contacted ND trading as ON to arrange marquee hire for her and her then- fiancee’s wedding at [Redacted] Beach, the total contract p...
...NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2022] NZEmpC 81 EMPC 420/2021 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application to strike-out proceeding BETWEEN HONEYBUNCH PURE NATURALS NZ LIMITED First Plaintiff AND LISA MARY JOLLY Second Plaintiff AND BARBARA-LEE (BARLEE) VAN NIEKERK Defendant Hearing: 16 Ma...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1439 APPLICANT KQ & WQ RESPONDENT EN & MN The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. EN and MN wanted to subdivide their property and sell two sections. KQ and WQ entered a contract with EN and MN to purchase a section, subject to subdivision. The agreement had a sunset clause that allowed EN
...said it had not been posted nor had it been placed in an envelope. The Standards Committee informed the Practitioner accordingly. [4] The Practitioner wrote again to the Standards Committee on 15 June 2009 challenging the truthfulness of the Applicant‟s claim that she did not know how the document came to be in her letter box. He contended that she had found the document among her papers and had herself placed it there. He reiterated his earlier stance that the Applicant ha...
...LCRO 127/2010 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Canterbury-Westland Standards Committee 1 BETWEEN FD Of Auckland Applicant AND VG of Christchurch Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Application for review [1] In December 2009, Mr FD (the Applicant) complained...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 644 APPLICANT DN RESPONDENT IL Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. This order is to be emailed and posted to the parties. Reasons: 3. In August 2020 DN purchased a spa pool (‘pool’) from IL Ltd. IL Ltd supplied DN with a replacement pump in August 2022 after it failed. 4. Several months la...
...expenses for which he sought reimbursement (aside from those connected with the self-employment grant, to which I will return). It was for Mr Chalecki to identify specific costs in relation to a particular venture and put that to the Corporation in a form which can be said to be a claim. [112] Mr Chalecki had numerous ideas over the years and sent financial information (forecasts and the like) of varying particularity to the Corporation, but I can identify no specific claim on whic...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 559 APPLICANT QD Ltd RESPONDENT SI APPLICANT'S INSURER J Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. SI is to pay QD Ltd’s insurer J Ltd, $4543.05 on or before 30 November 2023. Reasons: 1. Mr X, a director of QD Ltd, and SI were involved in a motor vehicle collision. Mr X was reversing from a driveway into [road] and sa...