10910 items matching your search terms
...Act and therefore is not inconsistent with section 16(1). Referee: S Simmonds Date: 25 July 2024 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 4 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 rehe...
...for naturally occurring stresses are not really able to be compensated. 16. As a result of my findings both the claim and the counterclaim are dismissed. Referee: M Wilson Date: 4 December 2023 Page 4 of 4 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 r...
...accepted two settlement packages on clear terms of finality, this further claim is vexatious and an abuse of process. [12] For those reasons, EB’s claim is struck out. Referee: C Hawes Date: 21 May 2024 Page 3 of 3 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...
...of the existing fence. MC and DC failed to object to his taking that action therefore they can be regarded as having given tacit approval to his proposed actions. 10. I find MC and DC’s failure to respond to that notice as not amounting to any form of approval or consent. They had issued a cross notice objecting to a new fence so that was their last word on the matter. They did not need to keep objecting no matter how many notices were served thereafter. 11. Adequacy of existing...
...and notices from the Tribunal by email? * (tick one) Yes, my email address for service is: No, please send to the postal address for service below: Postal address for service* Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Response Form Case Title CEIT Case Number Important information 1. Use this form if you are a named respondent in a claim to the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal, or you have been added as a third party respondent a...
...personal information, the agency holding such information is permitted by s 29(1) of the Privacy Act 1993 to refuse to disclose such information if (inter alia) the disclosure would breach legal professional privilege: 29 Other reasons for refusal of requests 1 [This decision is to be cited as: Turner v The University of Otago (Legal professional privilege claim) [2016] NZHRRT 15.] 2 (1) An agency may refuse to disclo...
...another person to suffer loss. DT and KG were granted rights to occupy units at MM Ltd Lodge, and therefore owe a duty of care regarding their surroundings; b. when parties enter into agreements contract law requires that those parties perform the promises they make to each other unless there is a valid legal reason not to. 9. I find damage to two units at MM Ltd Lodge was caused by DT and KG, and/or the dogs with them. 10. I say that because I am satisfied the evid...
...recovering from and managing his adjustment disorder. [6] On 8 May 2017 Mr Hill walked from his home to Pavlovich’s Carr Road depot to apply for a role as a bus driver. He undertook and passed a test drive. Mr Hill then completed an application form and had an interview with Louise Henare, recruitment consultant for Pavlovich. Ms Henare and Mr Hill went through Mr Hill’s application form in the interview, discussing various parts of it. This included a discussion about Mr Hill...
...replied suggesting Ms XY’s enquiries be directed to Mr SR. For the purposes of this review, the difference is inconsequential because Mr HG does not contend that he provided explanations, information or otherwise cooperated with Ms XY as she had requested. [15] Between 2010 and 2012 Ms RM and Ms PR made a number of enquiries, and had a number of meetings.6 Ms PR says she is limited by Ms XY’s privilege from detailing what those enquiries were, or who the meetings were with. H...
...$5,000 compensation for time spent disputing this claim. They allege there were privacy breaches and poor service, causing extensive delays in approving covered damage repairs. 26. Mr T disputed that W Ltd would be liable to pay any compensation or form of reparation for the stress and time of the applicants in dealing with the dispute. This is also not a provision under the policy. 27. Whilst I appreciate the applicants have faced delays and frustration during the dispute, I do not fi...