12935 items matching your search terms
...COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20140012567 CJ 2014/42 UNDER Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Great Barrier Island (all the islands and rock outcrops in the environs of Aotea) ERANA HEMOATA BAYNE Applicant Judgment: 22 August 2016 DECISION OF CHIEF JUDGE W W ISAAC 2016 Chief Judge’s MB 765 Introduction [1] This application filed b...
...WELLINGTON [2014] NZEmpC 44 [14 March 2014] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2014] NZEmpC 44 WRC 5/13 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for disclosure of documents by a non-party BETWEEN EMMA YUEN SEE FOX Plaintiff AND HEREWORTH SCHOOL TRUST BOARD Defendant Hearing: On documents filed on 10 March 2014 Appearances: B Sc...
...made. Background [3] In 1964 the Court laid out a roadway over a number of Hongoeka blocks ("the legal roadway"). The legal roadway is the only legal access into Hongoeka Bay. The legal roadway crosses a beach area and has never been formed. [4] A roadway providing access to Hongoeka Bay was formed over Hongoeka 7, Lots 2 and 3 DP 42094 (land owned by Ian Harwood in general freehold title) and other blocks ("the formed roadway"). The formed roadway is currently...
...of $1,500 towards its legal costs in opposing the plaintiff’s claim for costs. As to the union’s claim for costs on the challenge, it has been made well beyond the 2-month period allowed for doing so and although an extension of time is now requested, no reasons for the delay have been provided as are expected in such circumstances. That claim strikes me as a makeweight and tactical, and is refused. [5] I deal first with the question of costs in the Employment Relations Authori...
...105/2010 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee Number 2 BETWEEN AQ of Auckland Applicant AND ZI of Auckland Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Background [1] In July 2008, the firm of AAM (AAM) was instructed by the Applicant on...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 347 APPLICANT AF RESPONDENT FG SECOND RESPONDENT TI The Tribunal orders: 1. AF is to pay FG and TI $3,314.08 on or before 31 May 2024. 2. AF is the owner of and is entitled to possession of [the dog]. 3. FG and TI are to make [the dog] available to be collected by AF or her nominee no later than three working days af...
LAURA JANE GEORGE V AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL NZEmpC AK 24 March 2011 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2011] NZEMPC 25 ARC 91/10 IN THE MATTER OF special leave to remove proceedings AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for proceedings to be tried at the same time or one immediately after the other BETWEEN LAURA JANE GEORGE Plaintiff AND AUCKLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Defendant ARC 124/10 AND IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed AND IN TH...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1582 APPLICANT in the claim JT RESPONDENT in the claim SN APPLICANT in the counterclaim BI INSURER of the APPLICANT' in the claim JB Ltd The Tribunal orders: SN is to pay $5,806.50 to JB Limited by 7 August 2021 or by payments if JB Limited agrees. Background 1. On 21 February 202...
...significantly and may have also impacted upon the discovery exercise. However, it is only because of the way in which the legislature has approached the matter in the Employment Relations Act 2000 that litigation involving both contractual and tortious claims against the same ex-employees and the company they may have formed are not heard in the same court. Some of the difficulties that are presented by the parallel proceedings in this case would have been avoided if they all coul...
...and/or irrelevant. The next ground is: “The defendant is not entitled to claim litigation privilege in relation to particular documents detailed in the Schedule”. Next, the plaintiff says that the documents in respect of which privilege is claimed “are not properly described”. Penultimately, the plaintiff says that the defendant has waived privilege in particular documents listed in the schedule. Finally, the plaintiff says that the information contained in those document...