12922 items matching your search terms
...AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 145 [4 November 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 145 EMPC 7/2015 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for further and better disclosure of documents BETWEEN S Plaintiff AND I LIMITED Defendant Hearing: (on papers filed on 15, 22 and 23 March, 1, 15 and 29 July, 12 and 23 August, 1 and 8 September a...
...ALOANG BARCENA NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2017] NZEmpC 122 [4 October 2017] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2017] NZEmpC 122 EMPC 285/2017 IN THE MATTER OF an application for a search order BETWEEN CENTRAUS LIMITED Applicant AND ORLANDO ALOANG BARCENA First Respondent AND CORY KILCULLEN Second Respondent AND HUAN NGUYEN Third Respondent AND KBN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS LIMITED Fourth Respondent Hearing:...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 13 APPLICANT UH Ltd RESPONDENT BI The Tribunal orders: BI is to pay directly to UH Ltd the sum of $915.09 on or before Tuesday, 13 December 2023. Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. Both parties appeared at the hearing. Background [2] The parties agree the essential facts. The a...
...EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY [2023] NZEmpC 151 [11 September 2023] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2023] NZEmpC 151 EMPC 406/2021 IN THE MATTER OF an application for judicial review AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for costs AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for stay of proceedings AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for recusal BETWEEN ALL...
...which the complaint is based are: [1.1] A licensed immigration adviser who is independent of Mr E acted for the complainant, and he assisted with the complainant’s immigration affairs. He took matters to the point where he prepared a residence application and either he or the complainant lodged that application. [1.2] Immigration New Zealand found that the complainant failed to declare two declined applications for work visas. The declarations were made in the course of the other...
...Authority about him in its determination. 3 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 179(2). [7] He also wishes to have Mr Bryant removed as counsel for Enterprise IT, saying he has not been properly instructed by Enterprise IT, but that does not form part of his applications. [8] The reason Mr AlKazaz gives for wishing to strike out Enterprise IT is because he says that Enterprise IT has been placed in liquidation and that there is no agreement from the liquidator that proceed...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 332 APPLICANT TG APPLICANT TS RESPONDENT SECOND RESONDENT THIRD RESPONDENT NS NS Ltd BH APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) Applicant’s insurance company The Tribunal orders: 1. BH and NS Limited are both added as Respondents in the claim. 2. BH and NS Limited are jointly and severa...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 50 APPLICANT BS APPLICANT NS RESPONDENT DL The Tribunal orders: 1. DL is to pay BS and NS $2,676.22 on or before 2 March 2023. 2. The claim for NS’ medical expenses is struck out. 3. The claim for the filing fee is dismissed. Reasons 1. At around 8.00am on Sunday 23 February 2022, NS was wal...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 212 APPLICANT QE RESPONDENT HN The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons [1] QE claims from HN the sum of $1,985.00 as a contribution to the cost of a fence that QE had built on the boundary between his and HN’s properties. HN denies any liability to pay. [2] QE said that the fence in question had been old and dilapid...
...MY is to pay the sum of $11,891.60 (including $700.00 insured loss) directly to J Limited on or before 19 June 2019. (I note that the contents of Mr Y’s counter-claim were heard at today’s hearing even though it does not appear to have been formally lodged – I am not requiring it to be formally lodged because of the liability finding made in this decision) Reasons 1. Ms B and Mr Y were the drivers involved in a collision on N Rd in May 2018. They had both been travelling nort...