12924 items matching your search terms
...MATAURA VALLEY MILK LIMITED v GRAHAM SCOTT [2021] NZEmpC 67 [10 May 2021] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2021] NZEmpC 67 EMPC 221/2020 IN THE MATTER OF an application for an urgent search order without notice AND IN THE MATTER of an application to further vary search order BETWEEN MATAURA VALLEY MILK LIMITED Applicant AND GRAHAM SCOTT Respondent Hearing:...
...other kind of tort or in contract or on any other basis whatsoever for any consequential or indirect loss whatsoever arising from or in connection with any loss or damage to the goods. 40. OW Ltd have excluded liability for the consequential losses claimed by NQ. 41. The CGA cannot be contracted out of and OW Ltd would remain liable for foreseeable consequential losses arising out of its breach of the CGA as found by the Tribunal. However, the losses claimed by NQ were consequen...
This diagram shows the process a claim goes through, from application to outcome. You can find a more detailed explanation of the Tribunal process later in this section and in the Homeowners' Guide (link below). Things to note: We'll let you know when your claim has been received. This is does not mean your claim has been accepted. You and your insurer can reach a settlement at any stage in the process. At each stage in the process, you’ll be kept informed of the next steps and what you need...
...adjourned as B Ltd (represented by OT) were awaiting confirmation from [airline] (via SI’s travel agent) of any refund due to SI for cancelled flights ([City 2] to [City 3] to [City 4]). B Ltd confirmed their intention to refund SI’s portion of the claim less any refund from [airline]. They do not consider that NI’s portion of the claim is within the scope of the policy. 3. At the resumed hearing, SI confirmed that he has accepted the offer of $12,554.65 from B Ltd in respect o...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 394 APPLICANT EQ RESPONDENT FI Ltd The Tribunal orders: The Respondent party is corrected to be FI Ltd. The claim by EQ is dismissed. Reasons 1. EQ filed a claim for the cost of a second set of car keys against HU, a salesman at FI Ltd. At the hearing, it was agreed that FI Ltd was the correct respondent party...
...details .............................................................................................................. 11 Your local legal aid office ............................................................................................ 11 Applications ................................................................................................................... 16 Eligibility ..........................................................................................................
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 420 APPLICANT KH RESPONDEN T N Ltd The Tribunal orders: KH is to pay N Ltd the sum of $18,711.24 within 21 days of the date of this order. Reasons 1. The applicant contracted the respondent to transport a mobile home from [City 1] in the [Country] to [City 2] (“the freight service”). 2. The respondent invoiced the applic...
...cancelling roadway and laying out new roadway made at 5 Tākitimu MB 239-247 on 12 November 2010 and made at 40 Tākitimu MB 16-18 on 6 May 2015 KOHINE RATA, PHILLIP HUTANA, LILY WILCOX and HENARE HUTANA Ngā Kaitono Applicants Nohoanga: Hearing 9 December 2019, 2019 Chief Judge’s MB 1493-1518 (Heard at Hastings) Whakataunga: Judgment date 7 February 2020 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ MATUA TUARUA C L FOX Judgment of De...
...Plan 3020 and Section 2 Survey Office Plan 339948 and Others (Shelly Bay) I WAENGA I A Between MIKE TE WHAREHURU GILBERT, MARTHA HINEONE GLIBERT, KAREN MARAMA PARATA, MABEL URU TANIRAU AND ROGAN RAWIRI HAHOPE TANIRAU Ngā Kaitono Applicants Nohoanga: Hearings 6 August 2021, 441 Aotea MB 117-146 (Heard at Wellington) 31 January 2023, 461 Aotea MB 49 Kanohi kitea: Appearances Whakataunga: Judgment date C Hockly for Applicants T Cooley for Firs...
...file. [3] That request was made pursuant to s 147 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act). [4] That section is commonly relied on by a Standards Committee when it decides, in the course of a conduct inquiry, that it requires further information from the practitioner. [5] Mr ZM did not comply with the s 147 request. 2 [6] In due course, charges were laid with the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal). [7] One of the charges was...