12550 items matching your search terms
...NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2021] NZEmpC 188 EMPC 390/2021 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for urgency BETWEEN KOWHAI INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL BOARD OF TRUSTEES Plaintiff AND SHANE WEST Defendant Hearing: 2 November 2021 (Heard by telephone) Appearances: SR Mitchell and J Lynch, c...
...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 rehearing, you can apply online, download a form from the Disputes Tribunal website or obtain an application form from any Tribunal office. The application must be lodged within 20 working days of the decision having been made. If you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Reheari...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1695 APPLICANT BC RESPONDENT BJ Ltd The Tribunal orders: BJ Ltd is to pay BC $2962.00 on or before Monday 27 December 2021 Reasons: 1. On 19 February 2021, BC entered into a contract with BJ Ltd for an [Insurance policy]. Over the period 11-19 March 2021 she went on holiday, leaving her Labrador dog and a fr...
...written contract read "light polish and seal only (no aggregate showing)". This was to achieve a smooth cream finish. The floor that actually resulted from the build was grey in colour with a significant amount of aggregate showing. 3. ST claims damages of $15,196.35, being the cost to tile the floor with concrete-look tiles, in order to achieve closer to the smooth cream finish she had specified. 4. The issues to determine are: • Was the building work carried out in...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1697 APPLICANT LI RESPONDENT WH Ltd APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) DBJ Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. WH Ltd is to pay LI $2,000.00 on or before 7 December 2021. Reasons: 1. In or around July 2021, LI purchased a vehicle from someone in [City 1] via Trademe. LI engaged the services of WH Ltd to...
...is required. First, it was not strictly necessary for the Trustees to prepare the strike out and security for costs applications in advance of the first hearing of this application. Second, it is not appropriate 105 Tākitimu MB 206 to claim costs for preparing the costs application. Third, it is not appropriate to claim an allowance for further work required to finalise the costs application. I therefore adjust the total legal costs properly incurred by the Trustees to $6,...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 351 BETWEEN AFG FIRST APPLICANT AND AFH SECOND APPLICANT AND ZUO Ltd RESPONDENT Date of Order: 17 November 2013 Referee: Referee Stewart ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that AFH is joined as an Applicant. ZUO Ltd is to pay AFG and AFH the sum of $3120.0 within 7 days from the release date of this decision. Facts [1] ZUO Ltd
...Limited v Auckland Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 266 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER OF applications for costs under s 285 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN MCCALLUM BROS LIMITED (ENV-2022-AKL-121) Appellant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Court: Judge J A Smith Judge A H C Warren Hearing: On the...
...(the Registrar), the head of the Immigration Advisers Authority (the Authority). He rejected a complaint about fees made by the appellant, Mr R (D) A against a licensed adviser, Ms R (M) U. [2] The appellant was unable to proceed with a residence application, so the adviser did not have to complete all the contracted work. A dispute arose between them as to the level of fee refund offered by the adviser. An unusual feature of the circumstances giving rise to the complaint is that...
...– termination on grounds of pregnancy, physical disability or impairment – Human Rights Act 1993, s 22(1)(c) Beauchamp v B & T Co (2011) Ltd [2022] NZHRRT 10 McClelland v Schindler Lifts NZ Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 45 Comparator group – Part 1A claim – principles to be applied in identifying comparator Adoption Action Inc v Attorney-General [2016] NZHRRT 9 Consolidation – proceedings brought variously under Human Rights Act 1993 and Privacy Act 1993 – whether commonality between pr...