9046 items matching your search terms
...who in a particular ―workweek‖ works for his or her employer. There is therefore some 31 At 168. 32 At 171–172. 33 At 172. 34 At 171–172. 35 See Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defence Council 467 US 837 (1984) and the discussion in Wool Board Disestablishment Company v Saxmere [2010] NZCA 513 at [114]–[115]. 36 At 171. greater basis for averaging over that particular unit of time (the ―workweek...
...substantial fees. However, taking the matters outlined in rule 9.1 into account I do not consider the fees charged were unfair or unreasonable overall. [77] The proceeding was complex and involved multiple defendants. A significant amount of time and resources were required to ensure Ms WS fulfilled her professional obligations to Mr KL. The matter was important to Mr KL. His freedom was at stake, and his financial position in jeopardy. [78] Ms WS advised Mr KL of her best guess...
...reviewing the pleadings, experts’ reports and witness briefs, concluded that the litigation was both factually and legally complex, and rated the difficulty of the litigation at a high level such as to “justify the application of significant legal resource”.11 [74] Mr YT, who had reviewed the statements of claim and opening submissions, concluded that the case was factually and legally complex, and considered that a number of the legal issues raised by the case were novel....
...person’s control does not trigger professional disciplinary consequences is self-evident. The usual point of difficulty is what is controllable, proper control often requires that a professional person maintain effective control over employees and resources within a practice. Regardless, there are occasions when professional persons are blameless victims of deception, or other circumstances, and that does not trigger professional disciplinary consequences. Ms Zhou’s management of t...
...compensation to Ms Berry?” LCRO: “yes - up to $25,000.00” Mr Rondel: “I would like that to be entertained” [23] At another stage in the hearing Mr Rondel stated: I should be offering to Rosalie to cover her legal costs out of my own resources in having to pursue this [24] Costs incurred in Court proceedings are dealt with by the Court. They are not part of any compensation that could be ordered by a Standards Committee or the LCRO. Whether Mr Rondel fulfils his stated...
...modelling in relation to this topic. The modelling proposed relates to plan enabled capacity and updated modelling is now required because some of the base information has changed. In relation to the timetable proposed, the Council is working through resourcing constraints and will advise the Court whether the timetable proposed can be met as soon as possible. ENV-2016-AKL-000206 Cato Bolam Consultants Ltd [5]; [8] (re 011) Cabra Rural Developments Ltd Federated Farmers of New Zealand Fo...
...alcohol, could not have visitors without prior permission and was not to disturb residents during the night. He could only engage in a very limited range of other activities. His privacy was limited and he did not have access to the comforts and resources of his home. [35] The remaining two factors also indicated sleepover was work. The Court held that the greater and more extensive the responsibilities placed on the employee the more likely the period was work.12 Mr Dickson...
...existing relation between Mr BY and Mr EV who was Mr BY’s accountant. 17 [79] Ms CX advised the respondents by email on 7 November 2013, that an intense phase of preparation was about to commence and the firm could not “commit significant resources” to the file. That did not result in fees being brought up to date. [80] Instead, extensive discussions between Mr BY and Mr EV ensued, culminating in the Deed relating to payment of fees being signed on 21 November 2013....
...adjournment was granted. See the Minute dated 10 March 2017. [7] The current application for adjournment is suggestive of a pattern of conduct. Decision [8] As stated in the Minute dated 15 February 2017, hearing time before the Tribunal is a limited resource and adjournments cannot be lightly granted. Where the parties have received more than ample notice of a date of hearing the Tribunal must insist on the hearing going ahead unless there are truly proper grounds for an adjournmen...
...for themselves.”6 [71] In proceedings before this Authority, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development is the formal respondent in all appeals. Given that the other party is often a person who is vulnerable and likely to lack resources, the Chief Executive is given exceptional responsibilities to provide the information this Authority needs to make fair and correct decisions.7 In Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development v Genet Williams J said, at [...