12922 items matching your search terms
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 40 EMPC 288/2014 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of a stay of proceedings and an application to amend pleadings BETWEEN RITCHIES TRANSPORT Plaintiff AND KEERITIHI MERENNAGE Defendant Hearing: By consent memorandum filed on 30 March 2015 Appearances: G Mayes and K Amodeo, counsel for plai...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 269 APPLICANT BS RESPONDENT MQ The Tribunal orders: MQ is to pay BS the sum of $120.00 on or before 15 June 2023. Reasons: 1. BS booked two tickets on a fishing charter run by MQ. The information that came with the tickets included a departure time of 9am. In fact, this trip (and all trips MQ runs) departed at 7am....
GAVIN TEMARA v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 106 [25 June 2014] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2014] NZEmpC 106 ARC 49/14 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file challenge out of time BETWEEN GAVIN TEMARA Applicant AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent Hearing: On the papers filed on 3, 9 and 18 June 2014 Appearance...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 93 APPLICANT T Ltd RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On or about July 2022 T Ltd ordered a EX compressor, charger and battery kit (the kit) online through Q Ltd for $1079.00. 2. Q Ltd responded to the online order that the product was not available instore and would therefore h...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 402 APPLICANT IM RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 29 January 2024, while IM’s uninsured car was parked in a multi-level car parking building at [address] operated by X Ltd, the window glass was smashed and property was stolen from the car. There was insufficient evidence for the police to...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 333 APPLICANT HT RESPONDENT IF Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In October 2022 HT booked a cruise for himself and his daughter. The cruise was called the “[the cruise]” and was run by IF Ltd. 2. The cruise was due to start on 15 November 2022. Approximately two weeks before the voyage was due to...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 728 APPLICANT BP RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders: The application is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 11 December 2021, BP entered into a contract with G Ltd to provide concept plans for a home on BP’s property. The amount agreed to be paid for the concept plans was $3,000.00 which would be deducted from the cost to build the home if...
1 IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2013] NZHRRT 2 Reference No. HRRT 024/2012 UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1993 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY A NON-PARTY FOR ACCESS TO THE TRIBUNAL FILE BETWEEN IHC NEW ZEALAND PLAINTIFF AND MINISTRY OF EDUCATION FIRST DEFENDANT AND SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION SECOND DEFENDANT AT AUCKLAND BEFORE: Mr RPG Haines QC, Chairperson Dr SJ Hickey, Member Mr RK Musuku, Member REPRESENTATION:...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 395 APPLICANT BD RESPONDENT BM Ltd The Tribunal orders: BD’s claim against BM Ltd is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In January 2023 the applicant and his family were on holiday in [city] and had booked flights to return to New Zealand with the respondent. The outbound flight was delayed for 54 hours due to a numbe...
...communication, as well as the coordinated preparation of all the paperwork. [11] As for the concern raised that Mr Chiv had apparently failed to maintain client confidentiality at all times, it was submitted that the disclosure of confidential information “albeit one-off for administrative efficiency”, fell under one of the exceptions for disclosing confidential information. The disclosure was permitted because it had the clients’ express authorisation. The clients had appoi...