BRIAN MURRAY DAKEN Appellant. MURRAY EDWIN NIGEL WIIG Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Asher J)
|
|
- Solomon Gallagher
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA211/2016 [2016] NZCA 636 BETWEEN AND BRIAN MURRAY DAKEN Appellant MURRAY EDWIN NIGEL WIIG Respondent Hearing: 20 October 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Asher, Heath and Dobson JJ D M Lester for Appellant G A Hair for Respondent 21 December 2016 at 2.30 pm JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A The appeal is dismissed. B The appellant must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Asher J) The appeal [1] The respondent, Murray Wiig, was the majority shareholder in European Woodworks Ltd (European Woodworks). In October 2013 he sold his shares to the appellant, Brian Daken. Mr Daken had previously acquired the shares of the other shareholders. DAKEN v WIIG [2016] NZCA 636 [21 December 2016]
2 [2] Mr Daken was dissatisfied with his purchase. He considered there were breaches of warranty and misrepresentations. He refused to pay Mr Wiig the balance he owed for the purchase. Mr Wiig issued proceedings to recover that amount and Mr Daken counterclaimed on the basis of the alleged breach of warranty and misrepresentations. The case was heard by Dunningham J over four days. In her judgment of 12 April 2016 she found Mr Daken liable to pay the balance to Mr Wiig and effectively dismissed most of Mr Daken s counterclaim. Mr Daken has appealed that decision. 1 Background [3] The business in question manufactures timber and timber/aluminium windows and doors. It features fittings that comply with European regulations for weathertightness and thermal efficiency. At the time of Mr Daken s purchase, Mr Wiig owned the majority of the shares, the balance being owned by the original shareholders who had set up the company. [4] Mr Daken is a chartered accountant who owned an accountancy practice. After European Woodworks was placed on the market for sale, Mr Daken met Mr Wiig on several occasions. Mr Wiig provided Mr Daken with financial information about the business. Mr Daken visited the Dunedin premises of the business and ultimately signed an agreement to purchase the stock, plant and goodwill of the business for a total of $1,200,000. When there were difficulties in getting the other shareholders to cooperate with the sale, Mr Daken purchased the shares of the other shareholders first on 26 September 2013 and then separately signed an agreement on 18 October 2013 to purchase Mr Wiig s shares (the agreement). On the same day he was appointed a director of that company. [5] Mr Daken s claim is based on his view that European Woodwork s position was much worse than he had been led to believe it was in the negotiations and that he had been misled by the financial statements and other information with which he was provided. 1 Wiig v Daken [2016] NZHC 645.
3 The decision [6] Dunningham J found both Mr Wiig and Mr Daken to be credible witnesses. 2 They had approached the transaction in the spirit of cooperation and goodwill. She found that Mr Daken had not made out most of his claims. As the appeal was presented to us, there were in effect four grounds of appeal. First ground of appeal: The Judge erred in concluding the information provided was not financial statements [7] Central to Mr Daken s case was his claim that a key warranty as to the accuracy of the financial statements in cl 9.1(e) of the agreement was breached. He did not submit that the financial accounts for the year ending 21 March 2013 were wrong, but pointed to inaccuracies in the monthly profit and loss statements that he had received. [8] Clause 9.1(e) read: 9.1 The Vendor warrants with the Purchaser that: (e) the financial statements of the Company as disclosed to the Purchaser are complete and accurate in all respects and to the best of the Vendors [sic] knowledge and belief all statements and matters and information given to the Purchaser in relation to the Company and its financial affairs are true and correct in every material respect. Dunningham J held there was no breach of this clause. 3 Mr Lester for Mr Daken submitted that the Judge interpreted financial statements too narrowly, and that they included the misleading profit and loss statements. [9] It can be seen that cl 9.1(e) contained two separate warranties, the first being that the financial statements of the company as disclosed are complete and accurate in all respects. The second was that all other statements and matters and information given to the purchaser about the company and its financial affairs are to the best of the vendor s knowledge and belief true, accurate and correct in every material respect. There is therefore an explicit distinction drawn between the financial 2 3 At [26]. At [75].
4 statements of the company that had been disclosed prior to the agreement being signed, and other statements, matters and information relating to the company and its financial affairs. In respect of the financial statements there is an unqualified warranty that the statements are complete and accurate. In respect of other statements, matters and information there is a warranty that relates to the state of mind of the vendor. The vendor warrants that, to the best of his knowledge and belief, the information is true and correct. [10] The distinction was critical in this case, as there was undoubtedly some information provided that was inaccurate. In particular the profit and loss statements for June, July, August and September 2013 contained significant errors in what was shown as stock and work in progress. Mr Daken did not suggest that these were deliberate errors or that Mr Wiig knew about them. Therefore for the cause of action to be made out it was necessary for those financial statements to fall within the unqualified warranty provided by the first part of the clause, rather than the second part of the clause that turned on the vendor s knowledge and belief. [11] The plain words of cl 9.1(e) are the key, but the factual background is relevant to interpreting what is meant by the financial statements of the company. At the time the agreement was signed, there had already been some financial information provided. An unsigned draft of the financial accounts for the year ending 31 March 2013 was provided. The accounts were prepared by European Woodworks accountant, Grant Thornton. These accounts did not contain any error as to the stock and work in progress. A final and signed copy was not provided prior to the contract being signed. Clearly these accounts fall under the first part of cl 9.1(e). [12] We understand that ultimately the final financial accounts for the year ending 31 March 2013 were the same as this draft. There were no other more final accounts. [13] The profit and loss statements were not yearly financial statements. They were internally produced reports. They were provided through the period of the negotiations by Mr Wiig. Whereas at cl 9.1(e) the financial accounts for the year
5 ending 31 March 2013 clearly fall within the the financial statements of the company, these documents more naturally fall into the second category referred to in that clause. [14] More importantly, the profit and loss statements are informal in appearance. Their informality is confirmed by the communications that accompany their presentation. Mr Daken had asked for rough financials, which he said did not need to be perfect and Mr Wiig, in his s forwarding the documents, used words such as estimate and qualified the figures he was providing with references to various incomplete matters. He said by when providing the profit and loss statement for September: You will remember that this result is not accurate and that the stock figures have not been included. [15] We agree with the Judge that the profit and loss statements containing the errors plainly fell within the second category of documents. 4 The documents were informal, and not expressed to be accurate. Mr Daken was an accountant and he wanted as much information as he could get. He was provided that information, but Mr Wiig was careful to make the inadequacies of the information clear. It was reasonable in those circumstances for him to provide the information, knowing as he did that Mr Daken was an experienced chartered accountant, who would be well aware of the perils of relying on such interim material. [16] We do not see this as a difficult issue of contractual interpretation. In our view there was plainly one set of financial statements, and it was not suggested that those financial statements were inaccurate. In relation to the other information it is not submitted that there was a breach of the second part of cl 9.1(e). Plainly the erroneous documents fell into that second category. [17] We conclude therefore that the first ground of appeal is not made out. 4 At [62].
6 Second ground of appeal: The Judge erred in concluding the parties were bound by the entire agreement clause [18] Mr Lester argued that if the informal statements containing the errors were not covered by the warranty, they were in any event pre-contractual misrepresentations. This leads to a consideration of the application of an entire agreement clause that is in the agreement. That provided: 16. Entire Agreement 16.1 This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations, representations, and discussions, whether oral or written, of the parties. [19] It was argued for Mr Daken that this entire agreement clause should not preclude the Court from considering misrepresentations. He relied on s 4(1) of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979, which provides: 4 Statements during negotiations for a contract (1) If a contract, or any other document, contains a provision purporting to preclude a court from inquiring into or determining the question (a) (b) (c) whether a statement, promise, or undertaking was made or given, either in words or by conduct, in connection with or in the course of negotiations leading to the making of the contract; or whether, if it was so made or given, it constituted a representation or a term of the contract; or whether, if it was a representation, it was relied on the court shall not, in any proceedings in relation to the contract, be precluded by that provision from inquiring into and determining any such question unless the court considers that it is fair and reasonable that the provision should be conclusive between the parties, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the subject matter and value of the transaction, the respective bargaining strengths of the parties, and the question whether any party was represented or advised by a solicitor at the time of the negotiations or at any other relevant time. [20] The question is therefore whether the court considers it is fair and reasonable that the provision should be conclusive between the parties, having regard to the
7 various matters set out in s 4(1). Dunningham J was satisfied that it was fair and reasonable that the entire agreement clause be conclusive. 5 It was stated in PAE (New Zealand) Ltd v Brosnahan: 6 Section 4(1) recognises a wide judicial discretion to determine whether it is fair and reasonable that the provision should be conclusive. While the issue is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the specified criteria focus the inquiry on an assessment of the relative positions of the parties and their access to independent legal advice. Its apparent purpose is to protect one party s relative vulnerability from another party s power to impose an exemption from liability which is contrary to the factual reality or an existing legal obligation and is thus unreasonable and unfair. Section 4(1) is a mechanism for striking balances, both individually between parties and conceptually between freedom of contract and unfair or unreasonable commercial conduct. [21] Mr Lester argued that the Judge s approach was too narrow. He submitted that her approach appeared to have been coloured by the assumption that the formal financial accounts had been provided and that Mr Daken as a chartered accountant had had the chance to analyse them. [22] The negotiation in question here was a negotiation between equals. Neither party had any particular leverage. Mr Wiig wished to sell but was not desperate to sell and he had no particular fund of commercial wisdom or power that he could call in aid. Mr Daken was a chartered accountant who had a private chartered accountant s practice, and was clearly a man who understood how commercial transactions worked. He was not desperate to buy. Neither had any particular negotiation leverage that could have led to unfairness. There was no inequality in bargaining strength. [23] In terms of assessing whether s 4(1) applies, the detail of the actual sequence of events that led to the signing of the agreement and the detail of the misrepresentations in question are relevant to the assessment of the fairness and reasonableness of the provision. Here there was no rush on the part of either party to enter into an agreement. There was a very particular clause containing a representation as to the financial documents, that clause being cl 9.1(e) (to which we have already referred). In a circumstance where there is no clause dealing with 5 6 At [42]. PAE (New Zealand) Ltd v Brosnahan [2009] NZCA 611 at [15].
8 representations as to the financial statements to be relied on a court might be more willing to apply s 4(1) than where there is an explicit clause that spells out exactly what financial representations are made. Where there is a clause such as cl 9.1(e) that does provide a warranty for what might otherwise be misrepresentations, and that clause has been fairly negotiated between parties of equal bargaining strength, the court will be more reluctant to apply s 4(1). To apply it would indeed be to fly in the face of the purpose behind cl 9.1(e), and to make Mr Wiig liable for representations that it was agreed he would not stand behind, save to say it was his genuine belief they were accurate. Indeed we would observe that should we have concluded that s 4(1) did by any chance apply, we might well not have found any misrepresentations in relation to the financial information, given the very qualified way in which it was presented. [24] However, we do not need to determine that latter issue. It is sufficient for the purposes of this appeal for us to say that we agree entirely with the Judge s conclusion that s 4(1) should not be applied. Mr Daken is bound by the entire agreement clause, and cannot rely on the pleaded misrepresentations. Third ground of appeal: The Judge erred in finding that breach of warranty did not cause loss [25] Mr Wiig stated to Mr Daken that the value of confirmed orders was $800,000. It is common ground between the parties that this was an error. There were only confirmed orders of $565,000. The Judge found this was a breach of warranty, and that is not contested by Mr Wiig. 7 Judge determined there was no loss arising from this breach. 8 However, later in the judgment the This was because, from the time of the representation, the work that proceeded had a value well in excess of $800,000. Many of the unconfirmed orders came to fruition in the time immediately following settlement. Woodworks did not suffer any direct loss. 9 This meant that Mr Daken and European Wiig v Daken, above n 1, at [89]. At [104] [108]. At [106].
9 [26] Mr Lester submitted that the Judge had insufficient information on which to reach this conclusion, and that she should have heard further argument. However, although deposits had not been paid on some of the orders and therefore they were not confirmed, at the time of the warranty there was $958,290 of work for which Mr Wiig had received either a deposit or more informal verbal confirmation. While the Judge found that when a deposit was not paid the orders should not have been treated as confirmed, 10 given that those that proceeded might as well have been confirmed, there was no loss. The benefit, namely the future orders that had been negotiated prior to purchase, to the value of at least $800,000, was enjoyed. [27] It was for Mr Daken to show a loss arising from the breach of warranty. We agree with the Judge s conclusion that no loss was proven. There was no obligation on the Judge to defer the matter for further evidence. Given the high quantity of confirmed orders, further evidence could not assist. It was for Mr Daken to make out his case when he presented it at the trial. He failed to prove loss. Fourth ground of appeal: The Judge erred in concluding on the level of the overdraft, for the purposes of calculating loss [28] Mr Lester argues that the Judge proceeded on the basis of a finding that there was an overdraft facility at the time of settlement, that Mr Wiig advised Mr Daken would be up to $240,000. In fact, Mr Lester submits that the evidence was that Mr Daken reasonably understood the overdraft facility would be limited to $200,000. He was advised of an extension to that limit to $240,000 for a short period while Mr Wiig was overseas but reasonably expected it to revert to $200,000 on Mr Wiig s return. [29] At the trial Mr Daken s claim was that Mr Wiig had represented that the level of the actual indebtedness on overdraft would not exceed $115,000 on settlement. The Judge found there was no such representation. 11 [30] Under cross-examination Mr Daken accepted that there was no agreement between him and Mr Wiig about what the extent of the overdraft would be at At [85]. At [40].
10 settlement. The evidence was that Mr Wiig had warned Mr Daken that he had arranged the increase in the overdraft limit from $200,000 to $240,000 as a precaution while he was overseas. He returned prior to settlement. The Judge proceeded on the assumption that the evidence established a limit of $240,000, but Mr Lester argues that she was wrong to do so and that Mr Daken was entitled to treat the limit as $200,000 at the time he settled. [31] The relevance of the extent of the overdraft facility available to the company (as distinct from the amount by which the company s account was actually in overdraft at the date of settlement) is because Mr Wiig had warranted that the company would pay all its trade creditors up to date at the time of settlement. That warranty was breached because a number of trade creditors had not been paid under usual trade terms. [32] The Judge found that a recoverable loss would only arise for that breach if the company did not have the financial capacity within its overdraft limit to pay those outstanding trade creditors. If the level of the overdraft facility was at $200,000, then at the date of settlement there was not sufficient unutilised credit within the overdraft limit to pay the outstanding trade creditors, so a recoverable loss would be made out. However, if the level of the facility was up to $240,000, as found by the Judge, then the unutilised extent of that overdraft facility was sufficient to pay all the outstanding creditors and no loss would be recoverable. This aspect of the Judge s reasoning was not questioned on appeal. [33] We do not accept that the Judge erred in treating the relevant representation as one that the overdraft limit would be at $240,000 on settlement. The passages in the evidence on the state of the overdraft suggest there may have been confusion, both by counsel and the witnesses, between the fluctuating level of the company s indebtedness to the bank on its overdraft, and the ongoing extent of the overdraft facility that the bank had agreed to provide the company. The evidence on the point was less than precise, and somewhat equivocal. It was clearly open to the Judge to find that the representation accorded with the actual facts as to the extent of the overdraft facility. It has not been shown that the Judge was wrong in relying on
11 $240,000 as the stated overdraft limit. Accordingly, no error on this aspect of the judgment can be made out. Result [34] Mr Daken has not made out any of the grounds on appeal. [35] Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. [36] The appellant must pay the respondent costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. Solicitors: Cameron & Co, Christchurch for Appellant Malley & Co, Christchurch for Respondent
I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA416/2017 [2018] NZCA 239
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA416/2017 [2018] NZCA 239 BETWEEN AND QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED Appellant ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LIMITED Respondent Hearing:
More informationTHE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents
NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA112/06 [2007] NZCA 479. Appellant. Hammond, Chambers and Arnold JJ. Judgment: 1 November 2007 at 11.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA112/06 [2007] NZCA 479 BETWEEN AND ROCHIS LIMITED Appellant ZACHERY ANDREW CHAMBERS, JULIAN DAVID CHAMBERS, JOCELYN ZELPHA CHAMBERS AND KIMBERLY FAITH CHAMBERS Respondents
More informationJOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA361/2016 [2017] NZCA 69 BETWEEN AND JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: Court: Counsel: Judgment: 15 February 2017 (with an application
More informationAppellant. YANG WANG AND CHEN ZHANG Respondents
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA58/2017 [2017] NZCA 280 BETWEEN AND Y&P NZ LIMITED Appellant YANG WANG AND CHEN ZHANG Respondents Hearing: 11 May 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Cooper, Mallon and
More informationKENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Appellant. COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent. Randerson, Winkelmann and Keane JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA64/2014 [2015] NZCA 60 BETWEEN AND KENSINGTON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Appellant COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: 16 February 2015
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC ASTRID RUTH CLARK Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2013-404-004873 [2014] NZHC 1611 BETWEEN AND ASTRID RUTH CLARK Appellant REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 2004) Respondent Hearing: 13 June 2014
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 78/2014 [2014] NZSC 197. Appellant. Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ
NOTE: THE ORDER MADE BY THE HIGH COURT ON 28 MAY 2012 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE PARTIES' NAMES AND ANY PARTICULARS THAT WOULD IDENTIFY THE RESPONDENT (INCLUDING HER NAME, OCCUPATION, EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G
More informationPart II: Handling Conflicts of Interest between Insured and Insurer: The Lawyer s Dilemma
Handling Professional Indemnity Coverage Issues in Cases of Suspected Fraud Part II: Handling Conflicts of Interest between Insured and Insurer: The Lawyer s Dilemma Alison Padfield Devereux A. Introduction
More informationSUSAN MARIE HEAZLEWOOD Appellant JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA499/2014 [2014] NZCA 550 BETWEEN AND SUSAN MARIE HEAZLEWOOD Appellant JOIE DE VIVRE CANTERBURY LTD Respondent Hearing: 23 October 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment:
More informationLAURA JANE GEORGE Applicant. AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent. Ellen France, Randerson and French JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA731/2013 [2014] NZCA 209 BETWEEN AND LAURA JANE GEORGE Applicant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 12 May 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France, Randerson
More informationTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent. J K Scragg and P H Higbee for Appellant U R Jagose and D L Harris for Respondent
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA122/2013 [2013] NZCA 410 BETWEEN AND GARY BRIDGFORD AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELVA BRIDGFORD OF WHANGAREI Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2011 [2012] NZSC 69. SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC First Appellant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2011 [2012] NZSC 69 BETWEEN AND AND SERVICE AND FOOD WORKERS UNION NGA RINGA TOTA INC First Appellant THE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE A OF THE APPLICATION (THE
More informationBEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY
[2018] NZSSAA 007 Reference No. SSA 001/17 SSA 002/17 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX and XXXX of Invercargill against a decision of a Benefits Review
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05. ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent. William Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05 BETWEEN AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND INCOME Appellant ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2006 Court: Counsel: William
More informationSTEVENSON BROWN LIMITED Appellant. MONTECILLO TRUST Respondent. R W Raymond QC for Appellant D R Tobin for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA215/2016 [2017] NZCA 57 BETWEEN AND STEVENSON BROWN LIMITED Appellant MONTECILLO TRUST Respondent Hearing: 16 November 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison,
More informationIAN CHARLES SCHULER First Appellant. Harrison, White and Venning JJ. D G Hayes for Appellants C W Grenfell and B J Norling for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA27/2013 [2014] NZCA 91 BETWEEN IAN CHARLES SCHULER First Appellant INDEPENDENT LIVESTOCK 2010 LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Second Appellant AND DAMIEN GRANT AND STEVEN
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2017] NZEmpC 58 EMPC 178/2016. AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2017] NZEmpC 58 EMPC 178/2016 proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff NEW ZEALAND
More informationCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Appellant. PATTY TZU CHOU LIN Respondent. Harrison, Cooper and Asher JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA308/2017 [2018] NZCA 38 BETWEEN AND COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Appellant PATTY TZU CHOU LIN Respondent Hearing: 7 February 2018 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS POLARIS HOME FUNDING CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2010 v No. 295069 Kent Circuit Court AMERA MORTGAGE CORPORATION, LC No. 08-009667-CK Defendant-Appellant.
More informationC.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant. Winkelmann, Brewer and Toogood JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA637/2015 [2017] NZCA 3 BETWEEN AND C.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant WASIM SARWAR KETAN, FARKAH ROHI KETAN AND WASIM KETAN TRUSTEE COMPANY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC Appellant. CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-409-000006 [2013] NZHC 2388 BETWEEN AND CIRCLE K LIMITED Appellant CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 11 September 2013 Appearances:
More informationBEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. FRANK VOSPER AND VOSPER REALTY LIMITED Appellants
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZREADT 60 READT 081/15 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND an appeal under s111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 FRANK VOSPER AND VOSPER REALTY
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 13 June 2013 On 24 June 2013 Prepared: 14 June Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O CONNOR. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Sent On 13 June 2013 On 24 June 2013 Prepared: 14 June 2013 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE O CONNOR
More informationCALIBRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Appellant. MORTGAGE ADMINISTRATION SERVICES (CALIBRE) LIMITED First Respondent
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA538/2012 [2013] NZCA 503 BETWEEN AND AND CALIBRE FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED Appellant MORTGAGE ADMINISTRATION SERVICES (CALIBRE) LIMITED First Respondent CAIRNS
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/06808/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/06808/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Newport Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 22 August 2017 On 7 September 2017 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationProfessional Standards Scheme Briefing paper for lawyers August 2017
Professional Standards Scheme Briefing paper for lawyers August 2017 DISCLAIMER This Guide has been prepared for use by members of Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ) in Australia
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-694 [2015] NZHC 1417 BETWEEN AND E-TRANS INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LIMITED Plaintiff KIWIBANK LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 23 April 2015 Appearances:
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 24 September 2014 On 6 October Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MONSON. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/43816/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 24 September 2014 On 6 October 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: Citation: City of St. John's v. St. John's International Airport Authority, 2017 NLCA 21 Date: March 27, 2017 Docket: 201601H0002
More informationAppellant. KIRIWAI CONSULTANTS LIMITED First Respondent. 5 February 2015 (further submissions received 26 February 2015)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA201/2014 [2015] NZCA 149 BETWEEN AND KENNETH ANGUS HOLMES Appellant KIRIWAI CONSULTANTS LIMITED First Respondent KENNETH ANGUS HOLMES AND DAVID BRIAN RUSSELL AS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC UNDER the Companies Act 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2013-404-003305 [2016] NZHC 2712 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF an application under sections 295 and 298 BETWEEN AND MARK HECTOR NORRIE
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN. Between SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/01110/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Glasgow Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 th August 2015 On 1 st September 2015 Before UPPER
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 February 2016 On 14 March Before
IAC-FH-AR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 February 2016 On 14 March 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationBEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. GILLIES REALTY LIMITED Appellant. THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 410) First Respondent
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2018] NZREADT 4 READT 031/17 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND AND An appeal under section 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 GILLIES REALTY LIMITED
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL 1. Mr McDowell a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: HBU Properties Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] QCA 95 HBU PROPERTIES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SHANE MUNDEY FAMILY
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/08153/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/08153/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 March 2018 On 11 May 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between I L (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/12026/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 May 2016 On 1 June 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationRAPID CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondent. Harrison, White and Priestley JJ. R P Coltman and A C N de Hamel for Appellants B D Gustafson for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA76/2013 [2013] NZCA 489 BETWEEN AND VIVIEN JUDITH MADSEN-RIES AND HENRY DAVID LEVIN Appellants RAPID CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 2 October 2013 Court:
More informationSHABEENA SHAREEN NISHA Applicant. LSG SKY CHEFS NZ LIMITED Respondent. D J Goddard QC for Applicant C M Meechan QC for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA616/2015 [2016] NZCA 21 BETWEEN AND SHABEENA SHAREEN NISHA Applicant LSG SKY CHEFS NZ LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 15 February 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild,
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 12 January 2016 On 27 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 January 2016 On 27 January 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationTrevor John Conquer. The name of the complainant and any information identifying him or his wife is not to be published.
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2015] NZIACDT 49 Reference No: IACDT 067/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY 1. Mr Day a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 13 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under The Australian
More informationBusiness Law in Practice November 2010
Business Law in Practice November 2010 s and examiner s comments Important notice When reading these answers, please note that they are not intended to be viewed as a definitive model answer, as in many
More informationSteptoe & so on. The facts of the case. What is the issue? What does it mean to me? What can I take away? 1 November 2015
Steptoe & so on 1 November 2015 Keith Gordon reviews the First-tier s decision in Barrett v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0329 (TC) What is the issue? Mr Barrett, a jobbing builder, took on casual labour on a subcontract
More informationOutflanked High Court of Australia goes behind Bankruptcy Court Judgment
Outflanked High Court of Australia goes behind Bankruptcy Court Judgment September 18, 2017 Written by JHK Legal Senior Associate Daniel Johnston On 17 August 2017, the High Court of Australia delivered
More informationPROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE HARRIET MORGAN
Appeal number: TC/13/06946 PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER JUMBOGATE LIMITED Appellant - and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE & CUSTOMS
More informationERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEALOF NEW ZEALAND CA578/2014 [2015] NZCA 141 BETWEEN AND ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON Appellant TIMOTHY ERNEST CORBETT SAUNDERS, SAMUEL JOHN MAGILL, JOHN MICHAEL FEENEY, CRAIG EDGEWORTH HORROCKS,
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE L MURRAY
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06052/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Columbus House, Newport Sent to parties on: On 3 April 2017 On 23 May 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA108/05. GRAEME MORRIS TODD Second Respondent. Robertson, Baragwanath and Doogue JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA108/05 BETWEEN AND AND AMP GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED Appellant MACALISTER TODD PHILLIPS BODKINS First Respondent GRAEME MORRIS TODD Second Respondent Hearing: 21
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA327/2011 [2012] NZCA 481. POSTAL WORKERS UNION OF AOTEAROA INCORPORATED First Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA327/2011 [2012] NZCA 481 BETWEEN AND AND POSTAL WORKERS UNION OF AOTEAROA INCORPORATED First Appellant LINDA STREET Second Appellant NEW ZEALAND POST LIMITED Respondent
More informationRent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest
Rent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest The Court of Appeal in their latest judgement has confirmed that rent paid in advance is not a deposit. This was the case of Johnson vs Old which was
More informationDon`t under any circumstances Settle your Personal Injury Claim until you talk to a Solicitor
Don`t under any circumstances Settle your Personal Injury Claim until you talk to a Solicitor You have been involved in a road traffic accident, sustaining personal injury. You weren`t at fault for the
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/05672/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 April 2018 On 3 May 2018
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/05672/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Columbus House, Newport Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 April 2018 On 3 May 2018 Before DEPUTY
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2016-485-428 [2016] NZHC 3204 IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the Bankruptcy of Anthony Harry De Vries
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 4 th February 2015 On 17 th February 2015 Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No.12 0338 Filed December 20, 2013 IOWA MORTGAGE CENTER, L.L.C., Appellant, vs. LANA BACCAM and PHOUTHONE SYLAVONG, Appellees. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA508/2015 [2016] NZCA 138 BETWEEN AND MRINAL SARDANA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 8 March 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Winkelmann, Peters and Collins
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10. DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND application for leave to file challenge out of time DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant TRANSFIELD SERVICES (NEW
More informationHEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS. Heard on: Monday 26 March 2018 to Tuesday 27 March 2018
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Theodore Emiantor Heard on: Monday 26 March 2018 to Tuesday 27 March 2018 Location:
More informationCARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. J U Mooney for Appellant JEL Carruthers for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA297/2017 [2017] NZCA 535 BETWEEN AND CARL KIATIKA NGAWHIKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 November 2017 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Lang and
More informationADJUDICATOR GUIDANCE NOTE
Guidance Note No. 5 April 2003 ADJUDICATOR GUIDANCE NOTE UNREPRESENTED APPELLANTS It is possible that more appellants than in the past will be appearing unrepresented at their appeal hearings. The Legal
More informationTC04086 [2014] UKFTT 974 (TC) Appeal number: TC/2014/00845
[14] UKFTT 974 (TC) TC086 Appeal number: TC/14/00845 CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME failure to deduct tax from payments made to sub-contractors Regulations 9 and 13 Income Tax (Construction Industry Scheme)
More informationBasnet (validity of application - respondent) [2012] UKUT 00113(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Basnet (validity of application - respondent) [2012] UKUT 00113(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at George House, Edinburgh on 7 February 2012 Determination
More informationBEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY
[2018] NZSSAA 001 Reference No. SSA 075AA/11 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX of XXXX against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee BEFORE THE SOCIAL
More information1. Company/Organization/Individual named in the determination ( Appellant ) Name Address Postal Code
APPEAL FORM (Form 1) This Appeal Form, along with the required attachments, must be delivered to the Employment Standards Tribunal within the appeal period. See Rule 18(3) of the Tribunal s Rules of Practice
More informationRawofi (age assessment standard of proof) [2012] UKUT 00197(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between SAIFULLAH RAWOFI.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rawofi (age assessment standard of proof) [2012] UKUT 00197(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Before LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR Between Given
More informationMeloche Monnex Insurance Company, Defendant. R. D. Rollo, Counsel, for the Defendant ENDORSEMENT
CITATION: Zefferino v. Meloche Monnex Insurance, 2012 ONSC 154 COURT FILE NO.: 06-23974 DATE: 2012-01-09 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Nicola Zefferino, Plaintiff AND: Meloche Monnex Insurance
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MONSON. Between MR MUNIR AHMED (ANONYMITY DIRECTION NOT MADE) and
IAC-AH-CO-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/05178/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 June 2015 On 8 July 2015 Before
More informationArbitration CAS 2013/A/3283 Fudbalski klub Partizan v. Sao Caetano Futebol LTDA, award of 1 April 2014
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2013/A/3283 award of 1 April 2014 Panel: Prof. Martin Schimke (Germany), President; Mr Bernhard Heusler (Switzerland); Mr David
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV UNDER the Companies Act BLOSSOM WOOL LIMITED Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2008-404-000161 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 BETWEEN AND BLOSSOM WOOL LIMITED Applicant JAMES WILLIAM PIPER Respondent AND UNDER the Companies Act
More informationBefore: LORD JUSTICE KITCHIN and LORD JUSTICE SALES Between:
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWCA Civ 1436 Case No: A2/2016/0718 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL (LANGSTAFF J) UKEAT/0260/15/JOJ Royal Courts of
More informationTHE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. - and
[2017] UKUT 177 (TCC) Appeal number: UT/2016/0011 VAT input tax absence of purchase invoices discretion to accept alternative evidence whether national rule rendered exercise of rights under European law
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 13, 2003 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 13, 2003 Session BOBBY G. HELTON, ET AL. v. JAMES EARL CURETON, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Cocke County No. 01-010 Telford E. Forgety,
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT IMPERIAL GROUP (PTY) LIMITED NCS RESINS (PTY) LIMITED
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: 197/06 In the matter between: IMPERIAL GROUP (PTY) LIMITED APPELLANT and NCS RESINS (PTY) LIMITED RESPONDENT CORAM: SCOTT,
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZJGA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 787 MIGRATION appeal from decision of Federal Magistrate discretion to adjourn hearing on application for judicial
More information- and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE & CUSTOMS. TRIBUNAL: Judge Peter Kempster Mrs Shameem Akhtar
[] UKFTT 02 (TC) TC04432 Appeal number: TC/13/87 INCOME TAX penalties mitigated CIS penalties whether disproportionate RCC v Bosher whether delay in arranging oral hearing of appeal was breach of article
More informationin Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements
Issued June 2005 Effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 15 December 2004 Hong Kong Standard on Auditing 720 Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial
More informationArbitration CAS 2012/A/2786 FC Spartak a.s v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 29 August 2012
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2012/A/2786 FC Spartak a.s v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Panel: Mr Mark Hovell (United Kingdom),
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA82/2014 [2014] NZCA 304 BETWEEN AND TOESE
More informationREAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20003) ACTIVE REAL ESTATE LIMITED (TRADING AS HARCOURTS JOHNSONVILLE)
Decision No: [2014] NZREADT 40 Reference No: READT 043/13 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN an appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 ROBERT GARLICK Appellant AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20003)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA94/05 [2007] NZCA 61. STICHTING LODESTAR Appellant. William Young P, O Regan and Robertson JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA94/05 [2007] NZCA 61 BETWEEN AND STICHTING LODESTAR Appellant AUSTIN, NICHOLS & CO. INC. Respondent Hearing: 30 November 2006 Court: Counsel: William Young P, O
More informationWild, Simon France and Asher JJ. G J Kohler QC and R E Catley for Appellant C L Bryant and G J Luen for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA444/2014 [2014] NZCA 564 BETWEEN AND WATTS & HUGHES CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Appellant COMPLETE SITEWORKS COMPANY LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 11 November 2014 Court:
More informationDAVID STANLEY TRANTER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985 AND S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE
More informationAppellant. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent. Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann JJ. A Shaw for Appellant A M Powell and E J Devine for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA600/2015 [2016] NZCA 420 BETWEEN AND DINH TU DO Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Cooper and Winkelmann
More informationREAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION
REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO BY-LAW NO. 10 OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO JOHN VAN DYK Respondent This document also
More informationCONCERNING CONCERNING BETWEEN. The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION
LCRO 132/2014 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [City] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN WK Applicant
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 17 March 2015 On 20 April 2015 Delivered orally. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GOLDSTEIN.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 17 March 2015 On 20 April 2015 Delivered orally Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GOLDSTEIN
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 15 January 2016 On 25 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SHERIDAN. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: AA/10555/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 January 2016 On 25 January 2016 Before DEPUTY
More informationUNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 ARTHUR LAMAR RODGERS STATE OF MARYLAND
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2879 September Term, 2015 ARTHUR LAMAR RODGERS v. STATE OF MARYLAND Beachley, Shaw Geter, Thieme, Raymond G., Jr. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/06395/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) HU/06395/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 March 2018 On 29 March 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationBefore : LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE LORD JUSTICE PATTEN and MR JUSTICE ROTH Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Civ 717 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, CHANCERY DIVISION, COMPANIES COURT MR RICHARD SHELDON QC (SITTING AS A DEPUTY
More informationSyed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SPENCER. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Syed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT 00144 IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House on 18 th January 2013 Determination Promulgated Before
More informationBefore: LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN and - THE UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
Case No: A2/2010/2941 Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWCA Civ 592 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Before: LORD JUSTICE SULLIVAN Royal Courts of Justice
More informationAPPEAL FROM DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A
CT+ Kqqb SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1986 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 APPEAL FROM DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER Name:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC MDS DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2015-404-1109 [2015] NZHC 2145 BETWEEN AND MDS DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Applicant APPLEBY HOLDINGS LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 25 August 2015 Appearances:
More informationDECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY. 7 March 2018
A-014-2016 1(11) DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEAL OF THE EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY 7 March 2018 (Biocidal products Data sharing dispute Every effort Permission to refer Chemical similarity Contractual freedom)
More information