12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 569 APPLICANT D Ltd RESPONDENT P Ltd The Tribunal orders: P Ltd is to pay $18,000.00 to D Ltd on or before 29 November 2023. Reasons 1. D Ltd supplied archaeology and heritage services in relation to a commercial property at [Address]. At the time D Ltd was engaged, excavation works were being undertaken at the property as p...
...in maintaining the deceit claim at and after the September 2009 settlement conference, despite his admission to Mr [RS] constitutes an attempt to pervert the course of justice and the Committee has not made any inquiries on that issue. (f) The request that a retired High Court Judge investigate the claim was justified because: 9 (i) The complaint was made against Mr [SY], a senior partner in a well-known law firm. (ii) The nature of the complaint and the background proceed...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 792 APPLICANT BX FIRST RESPONDENT QD As trustee of the C Family Trust SECOND RESPONDENT KD As trustee of the C Family Trust THIRD RESPONDENT FC As trustee of the C Family Trust FOURTH RESPONDENT (if applicable) BN Ltd As trustee of the C Family Trust The Tribunal orders: The claim is...
...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...
...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...
...Judgment: 13 March 2020 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE K G SMITH (Applications to strike out part of the proceeding) [1] Zara’s Turkish Ltd has applied to strike out several causes of action in an amended statement of claim filed by Ibrahim and Güler Kocatürk. [2] The application is made on the basis that the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider the disputed pleadings, either because they fall outside s 187 of the Employment Relations Ac...
...On Tuesday 14 June 2011, on the application of the defendant in WRC 8/09 (the fraud proceedings), I struck out all references to Mr Quigg or his firm Quigg Partners, Barristers & Solicitors, in the plaintiff’s second amended statement of claim dated 18 August 2010. The following are my reasons for so doing. [2] The second amended statement of claim in the fraud proceedings runs to 77 pages and contains also a schedule of changes made to the first amended statement of claim w...
...the plaintiff on the afternoon of Friday, 27 September 2013 for an order entering judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The grounds of the application were that the defendant had failed to file a statement of defence to an amended statement of claim filed in each of the above proceedings on 20 March 2013. After hearing argument, I gave a brief oral ruling against the plaintiff and I indicated that I would give my reasons later. I now do so. The background [2] In i...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 337 BETWEEN AEP APPLICANT AND ZVG LTD RESPONDENT Date of Order: 28 August 2013 Referee: Referee Edwards ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed. Facts [1] AEP contracted ZVG Ltd to move her possessions in March 2013. The signed contract stated that the carriage was to be at “owner’s risk”. [2] Include...