10910 items matching your search terms
...dismissed since no basis has been established for personal liability. Referee: E Paton-Simpson Date: 19 June 2024 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a reh...
...cost of remedial work and they nominated a builder, Mr Walmsey, who has a good reputation in the industry and whose expertise in remediation work was confirmed by the Assessor. The first offer was contained in a fax of 18 December. It included a request the claimants contribute $50,000. In the fax of 2 February no contribution was sought. There was a cash offer of $300,000 given as an option. In the event the first and second respondents were held liable for $310,888. [30] Th...
...'face' to our work. Working away in the Division it is easy to forget that 'claimants' are real people too. We sometimes need to be reminded of that. We have some limited work space available and researchers are welcome to any information that we hold in the Division. Where time permits, staff are also pleased to offer advice with research problems, or to direct researchers to particular information. Buddy Mikaere Director HEARINGS BEGIN IN TARANAKI The Urst...
...in relation to the contract. (section 41 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (“CCLA”) 21. The cancellation may be made known by words or by conduct showing an intention to cancel, or both. It is not necessary to use any particular form of words, so long as the intention to cancel is made known. (s41 of the CCLA) 22. QH did not make his intention to cancel the contract known to BX until the 24 September 2020. I am not satisfied that his conduct prior to that showed an...
...defendant was entitled to costs and timetabled an exchange of submissions. On 16 November 2023, the defendant sought costs on a Category 2B basis amounting to $4,302.2 1 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Knight [2023] NZEmpC 198. 2 The amount claimed is less than the defendant’s actual costs. [3] In response, Mr Tan accepted that Category 2B applies but four propositions were advanced that: (a) Carrington had applied in good faith and, even though it was ultimately uns...
...determination will contribute to costs on review. [111] Mr MV did not challenge the committee’s determination but is left with an unsatisfactory conduct finding on his professional record and a $500 fine. [112] The application for review, and request for a hearing, were made by Mr CJ, as is his right. The review hearing was convened at his request. Mr ZZ submits Mr MV should be ordered to pay Mr CJ’s costs on review. [113] In my view this review could have been determined...
...dated 2 July 2023) against the decision of 12 May 2023. It was against the second respondent. In the appeal form, the appellant acknowledged being outside the appeal period of 20 working days. [10] At the same time, the appellant filed a “Request for Extension to Appeal Deadline” (undated). She relevantly states: Upon receiving the decision from the CAC, I wrote to my lawyer to guide me through the appeal process. However, despite multiple attempts to contact my lawyer via...
...recourse available to him or her. Under section 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) when someone has been induced to enter a contract by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, that person is entitled to damages (a form of compensation) as if the representation were a term of the contract that has been breached. 6. A misrepresentation must be untrue and a statement of past or present fact. 7. It is not enough for a party to say that a representation c...
...ordered to pay $48 to N Ltd by 5pm on 19 July 2023. Reasons: 2. HN had an appointment to see a doctor at N Ltd on 14th June 2022 to obtain a driver’s medical certificate. The appointment went as planned where a few checks were completed, and a form was filled which would assist HN with his driver’s licence. 3. After the appointment, HN was given an invoice for $98 by the reception at the clinic which is the subject of this dispute. 4. HN is of the view that this fee sh...
...had been threats of violence from Mr Cotter and Ms Grant, both of whom, it was claimed, had “stormed” into Mr Tan’s office. The plaintiffs said the decision to dismiss was made because of this threatening conduct.26 [42] Later, Mr Tan requested payroll to process Ms Grant’s timesheet as submitted. The Authority recorded that Ms Waters had advised Mr Tan that the time recorded was justified.27 [43] After Ms Grant and Mr Cotter had left Mr Tan’s office, he prepared and...