BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA Decision No. [20181 NZEnvC 52 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
|
|
- Brendan Fox
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA Decision No. [20181 NZEnvC 52 IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an application pursuant to s 149T of the Act QUEENSTOWN AIRPORT CORPORATION LIMITED (ENV-2011-WLG-41 ) Applicant Court: Environment Judge J E Borthwick Environment Commissioner R M Dunlop Environment Commissioner D J Bunting Hearing: at Christchurch on 4 and 5 April 2018 Appearances: M Casey and C Somerville-Frost for Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited R Somerville and R Ward for Remarkables Park Limited J Winchester for Queenstown Lakes District Council (Regulatory) K Hockly for Queenstown Lakes District Council (Corporate) Date of Decision: 20 April 2018 Date of Issue: 20 April 2018 DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ON APPLICATION FOR REHEARING A: Application for a rehearing is refused. B: Costs are reserved. REASONS Introduction [1) In August 2017 Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd published a document for public consultation on options for dealing with an increase in projected passenger LOT 6 - DECISION 2018
2 2 movements, including whether there should be a limit on movements, through Queenstown Airport. [2] Relative to the infrastructure that could be enabled under the Airport's designation,' an expanded existing terminal at Queenstown Airport is predicted to reach maximum passenger movements in This is some ten years earlier than forecast at the time Queenstown Airport lodged a notice of requirement to extend its designation over land owned by Remarkables Park Limited" [3] Through the document, entitled "Master Plan Options: Let's start talking about tomorrow" ("the options document"), the Airport is seeking the public's response on whether and how to accommodate the predicted growth. In this context, the Airport has identified two viable options to enable up to 5.1 million passenger movements per annum. The Airport layout under both options is different from the one pursued by the Airport under the notice of requirement and considered by this court. [4] Remarkables Park says this constitutes new and important evidence; evidence which, had it been available to the Environment Court might have affected or changed the decision confirming the notice of requirement. Consequently, it applies for a rehearing pursuant to s 294 of the Act. [5] The application for rehearing is opposed by Queenstown Airport. Going further, Queenstown Airport has made an interlocutory application for an order striking out the application for rehearing on the grounds that the application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Both applications were set down to be heard together. [6] Given the importance of the proceeding to Remarkables Park, particularly in light of its legitimate expectation that Queenstown Airport would use its own land for airport purposes and not Remarkables Park land for undertaking the work,3 we will decide the application for rehearing and then, as we were invited by Queenstown Airport, indicate our view on the merits of the strike out application. 1 An application to extend the existing designation (Designation 2) was confirmed by the Environment Court on 31 March 2017 in Re : Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2017] NZEnvC 46. This decision was unsuccessfully appealed by Remarkables Park Ltd to the High Court. 2 Affidavit of R C Keel sworn 28 February Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2014] NZEnvC 244 at [69].
3 3 [7] The District Council (in its corporate and regulatory capacities separately represented) supports Queenstown Airport. Rehearing application [8] Section 294(1) of the Resource Management Act 1991 provides that: [w]here, after any decision has been given by the Environment Court, new and important evidence becomes available or there has been a change in circumstances that in either case might have affected the decision, the court shall have power to order a rehearing of the proceedings on such terms and conditions as it thinks reasonable. [9] On an application being made, the Environment Court is required to consider whether one of the preconditions might have affected the decision. The requirement to consider the preconditions, as Heath J has held, "invokes the concept of materiality rather than one of miscarriage or interests of justice"; per Shepherd v Environment Court at [36].4 The preconditions, which he describes as being "prescriptive", are justified because the court's decisions typically affect both the immediate parties and the public generally. Thus s 294(1) is focused on the establishment of the preconditions and the assessment of materiality5 [10] Remarkables Park Limited ("RPL") submits the options document is "material" because it affects Lot 6. Under two of the three options identified, the existing passenger terminal would be relocated. If those options were to be implemented, RPL says the Airport would first need to demonstrate consideration had been given to using the site of the existing passenger terminal and industrial land to the north for airport purposes such as general aviation and helicopters facilities. 6 [11] While it is correct that the options document identifies a requirement for Lot 6 under layouts that are different from the one advanced by Queenstown Airport ("QAC") in the earlier proceeding, materiality refers to the decision made by the Environment Court. We agree with QAC that materiality informs what is meant by "important" evidence in s 294(1). Evidence will not be important unless it is material to the decision made by 4 Shepherd v Environment COUIt (NZHC) Auckland CIV , 21 October Shepherd v Environment Court at [37]. 6 Queenstown Airport is consulting on activities that may be situated on the site of the passenger terminal were it to relocate. The options document does not show General Aviation relocating to this area.
4 4 the court. [12J The parties agreed the relevant decision is the final decision released in March 2017; Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [201 7J NZEnvC 46. In saying that, the aspect of the final decision that is to be reheard was not clearly articulated by RPL. In the final decision, the court reconsidered all its findings in light of Part 2 and this included the earlier substantive decisions on s 171(1)(b).Y The general thrust of RPL's notice of motion is to seek a rehearing on whether, in light of the options document, adequate consideration was given to alternative sites pursuant to s 171(1 )(b) of the Act. This would entail a complete rehearing of the NoR, not least because the enquiries under ss 171(1)(b) and (c) are inter-related. [13J That said, in light of RPL's legitimate expectation, we would not refuse rehearing the NoR on the grounds that it would be akin to a hearing de novo. Consideration [14J The evidence led by QAC in support of the NoR, advanced an airport layout where all airport facilities were co-located south of the main runway on or adjacent to Lot 6. On its face, the options document raises questions about the reliability of evidence and the credibility of experts called on behalf of QAC in support of the notice of requirement. That is because at first blush the document identifies two airport layouts that are inconsistent with the court's findings of fact and our decisions concerning the adequacy of consideration given to alternative sites. 8 [15J The question for us to determine is whether the options document, which is "new" evidence, is also important evidence in the sense that it is material to the final decision. We find on the evidence that it is not material to the final decision for the following reasons: (a) for demand forecast of up to 3.2 mppa 9 the options document confirms the airport layout supported by QAC in the final decision (option 1); 7 In particular, [201 2) NZEnvC 206 and [2014) NZEnvC Options 2 and 3. 9 MPPA means Million Passenger Movements Per Annum.
5 5 (b) the capacity at the airport to accommodate greater passenger movements is a constraint on tourism generally; (c) the Chief Executive Officer of QAC confirmed the NoR is required to address the increase in the future demand up to 3.2 mppa and that QAC is committed to pursuing and progressing the NoR;'o (d) the Airport cannot accommodate unconstrained growth in passenger numbers. Most obviously, growth is constrained by limits on airport noise and by land ownership and zoning of land; (e) the decision whether and to what extent to accommodate additional demand growth of up to 5.1 mppa is contingent on or, at the very least, informed by matters that are outside of the Airport's control. This includes the capacity of existing infrastructure to accommodate new visitors to the district (the capacity of roads, visitor accommodation, worker accommodation, essential services were cited); and (f) the views of Queenstown residents are important. The Airport is part of this community and its activities directly impact on them. The fact that growth can (at least in theory) be accommodated under a differently configured airport layout does not mean the community will support this outcome. The costs to Queenstown residents may outweigh the benefits of increased growth. [16) The information contained in the document is not material to the decision made by the court. Put simply, the court is not engaged with a fact-finding exercise about which of the airport layouts" in the options document might ultimately find favor. Change in circumstances? [17) While not pleaded as a ground for rehearing, RPL submits the potential for relocating the passenger terminal is a change in circumstances which might also have affected the decision. [18) There is no evidence to support a proposition that the passenger terminal will be in a different location to that considered by the court. This possibility only arises under the options document were the Airport to accommodate an increase in growth of up to ' 0 Affidavit of R C Keel dated 28 February 2018 at (36). 11 Options 2 & 3 in particular.
6 6 5.1 mppa. In this circumstance, the options document identifies the passenger terminal at a different location. For now, grow1h of passenger numbers is constrained to 3.2 mppa by infrastructure to be developed under the NoR, with other constraints - such as limits on noise - restricting actual passenger movements to a level falling short of 3.2 mppa. It does not follow from this that the court's earlier fact-finding "might" have been affected had the options document been in evidence. [19] There is no change in circumstances because no decision has been made by the Airport to accommodate the greater demand or to relocate the passenger terminal. Outcome [20] The application for rehearing is refused. Strike out application [21] Having declined the application for rehearing, there is no need to decide QAC's interlocutory application to strike out the proceeding. We will, however, give an indication as to the merits of the application. [22] QAC has sought an order striking out the application for rehearing on the grounds that it is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. QAC submits the High Court has addressed the substance of the grounds for the rehearing application in its decision Remarkables Park Ltd v Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd. ' 2 [23] RPl opposed the interlocutory application. QlDC supports QAC's position. Litigation history [24] In 2017 RPl appealed the decision of the Environment Court confirming the notice of requirement (Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2017] NZEnvC 46). This is the second of two appeals by RPl to the High Court concerning QAC's notice of requirement to alter Designation 2 of the Queenstown lakes District Plan to extend the aerodrome at Queenstown Airport. The second appeal was dismissed by Justice Nation in Remarkables Park Ltd v Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2017] NZHC Remarkables Park Ltd v Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2018J NZHC 269.
7 7 [25] The appeal was set down to be heard in the High Court on 4 December On 22 November 2017 RPL filed three applications. First, an application to the Environment Court for rehearing; second an application to adjourn the High Court hearing pending the Environment Court's decision on the rehearing application; and finally, an interlocutory application to the High Court for leave to adduce further evidence, specifically, the options document. [26] The application seeking leave to adduce further evidence to the High Court was made on the grounds that the options document was not available at the time the Environment Court made its decision and that it was "cogent and material". RPL director, Mr A F Porter filed an affidavit in support giving four reasons for placing the document before the High Court. These being: (a) (b) (c) (d) the QAC document is new and important evidence that has become available since the final Environment Court decision Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited" was issued; had such evidence been available at the time of the decision, it might have affected or changed that decision; it is in the interests of justice that the High Court takes into account the QAC document which is at odds with the evidence that the Environment Court was relying on when making its decision; and there is significant prejudice to RPL if the court does not have all the public information relevant to the evaluations the Environment Court is required to make. [27] A memorandum filed in support of the leave application cites rule of the High Court Rules which provides that a party to an appeal may adduce further evidence only with leave of the court. The High Court may grant leave only if there are special reasons for hearing the evidence (rule 20.16(2)). By way of example of a "special reason", the rules refer to evidence about matters that have arisen after the date of the decision appealed against that are or may be relevant to the determination of the appeal. [28] Published after the Environment Court released its decision, RPL explained in its memorandum that the contents of the options document are cogent and likely to be highly 13 Queenstown Airport Corporation Limited [2017] NZEnvC 46.
8 8 material to issues to be determined by the High Court; namely whether the Environment Court had erred in finding QAC had given adequate consideration to alternatives under s 171 (1 )(b) and had erred in failing to undertake a full evaluation of "a hybrid option" which took into account RPl's legitimate expectation. RPl's position being that the " document both undermines and contradicts the Environment Court's decision to confirm the NoR. Had that document been before the Environment Court, it could have led to a different result. 15 [29] Following a telephone conference on 29 November 2017 Justice Nation issued a decision declining to adjourn the High Court hearing, reserving his decision on the application for leave to adduce further evidence for final determination when the appeal was heard. ' He observed that if there is to be a rehearing this will be because the Environment Court decides the information in the document materially impacts on the correctness of its factual determinations H [30] The application for leave to adduce further evidence was heard by the High Court together with RPl's notice of appeal. The High Court refused leave to adduce the document because it found that it was not sufficiently relevant to the issues before that court and the appeal was dismissed in its entirety.1s QAC relies on this determination, together with its supporting reasons, for an order striking out the application. [31] QAC says the Environment Court is bound by the decision of the High Court, the ratio is dispositive of the issues raised by RPl '9 or, at the very least, highly persuasive. 20 QlDC adopted those submissions, with Mr Winchester amplifying that the Environment Court is bound by the High Court's findings on the relevance of the document to the Environment Court's factual determinations.,. Memorandum of counsel in support of interlocutory application by RPL for leave to adduce further evidence dated 22 November 2017 at [11-4). See also submissions of appellant in support of application for leave to adduce further evidence dated 4 December 2017 at [17]-[20]. 15 Memorandum of counsel in support of interlocutory application by Remarkables Park Ltd for leave to adduce further evidence dated 22 November 2017 at [15] and [18].,. Remarkables Park Ltd v Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2017] NZHC 2962 at [10]. 17 [2017] NZHC 2962 at [14]. 1S Remarkables Park Ltd v Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2018] NZHC 269 at [157]. 19 QAC Strike Out submissions at (24). 20 Transcript at 50.
9 9 Same claim different courts? [32] QAC referred to the decision of Collier v Butterworths of NZ Ltd (1997) 11 PRNZ 581, in support of an application to strike out for abuse of process where, as it is contested in this case, another court has made a prior determination of a claim which, in substance, is the same. [33] Master Venning (as he then was) in Collier v Butterworths of NZ Ltd (1997) 11 PRNZ 581, struck out the plaintiff's claim in negligence finding that properly analysed, and in substance, this was the same claim as in an earlier proceeding for defamation which had been also struck out because it was time barred. The later-in-time claim for negligence was pleaded in order to avoid the difficulty faced by the plaintiff under the limitation provisions of the Defamation Act. Master Venning held that as such the claim was an abuse of the process of the court. 21 [34] We accept that there is considerable public interest in the finality of decisionmaking and acknowledge the deference and respect shown between courts of different jurisdictions as a matter of judicial comity. [35] RPL does not say that the Environment Court erred by not taking into consideration a document that did not exist at the time we made our decision. 22 Before the High Court RPL sought leave to adduce the options document in support of a key argument that the Environment Court erred because we did not further consider the issue of alternative sites after Queenstown Airport introduced new evidence concerning a dual taxiway in [36] RPL submits that the High Court has made no factual findings, and nor was it required to do so, as the grounds of appeal were on questions of law. More particularly, the High Court was not required to consider whether the options document could materially impact on the factual determinations of the Environment Court, as this was a matter for the Environment Court on the rehearing application. Ultimately, the High Court found that the options document was not sufficiently related to the legal issues raised by
10 the questions of law for it to be adduced as further evidence in the appeal [37] At this hearing, RPL submits that had the options document been available to the Environment Court at the time we made our factual determinations, our final decision might have been different. [38] QAC takes issue with RPL's description of the High Court proceedings. [39] It records that in the amended notice of appeal" RPL alleged the Environment Court had made 18 errors and sought 13 questions of law be determined, several of which concerned whether the court's fact-finding was supportable on the evidence. 26 Several times it is asserted that "the only reasonable conclusion was one that contradicts determinations" made by this division of the Environment Court. There are other questions of law not addressing sufficiency of evidence, including the question referred to by Mr Somerville above where RPL alleged that the court wrongly exercised its discretion when it failed to take into account evidence called on behalf of RPL concerning alternative sites.27 [40] The memorandum filed in the High Court supporting the application for leave to adduce the options document records RPL's contention that the options document "undermines and in fact presents options that contradict the Environment Court's decision to confirm the NoR over Lot 6 ".28 The High Court, however, refused leave because the options document was found not to be sufficiently relevant to the issues before that court and the appeal was dismissed in its entirety'>9 QAC relies on this decision to support its strike out application.,y, 24 RPL Strike Out submissions at [25]-[27]. 25 Amended notice of appeal (High Court) dated 4 December See amended notice of appeal dated 4 December 2017 at [5.2], [5.8(a)], [5.8(b)], [5.8(c)], [5(d)]), [5.10], [5.11] 27 Amended notice of appeal at [5.14]. 28 In the memorandum of counsel in support of interlocutory application by Remarkables Park Ltd for leave to adduce further evidence dated 22 November 2017, RPL identifies the options document being relevant to,,'< < the grounds of appeal at [5.8(b)]. These grounds were expanded in RPL's submissions in support of 6(1 <'"J:'" "S~ application for leave to adduce further evidence dated 4 December 2017 to include questions of law in the rn ~;,:h,,'i.'<j!), \ amended notice of appeal at [5.2], [5.8(c)] and [5.8(d)].. ~ r~k(:-',.:.~. ~'l 29 Remarkables Park Ltd v Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [20 18] NZHC 269 at [157].. ;! 'it)....) o~, (;l\ :gl:~ '~;~\;hj;:t {~I. ~?:~. '- -'..-li/ -It/,... ~ <,,{:.\ /. ~OUfn O~ ::./ ---~...,
11 11 Discussion [41] In a case before the Employment Court, the presiding judge, Judge Corkill, citing Collier v Butterworths neatly engaged with the issue raised by QAC in this proceeding in the following way:30 As a starting paint, it is necessary to identify the nature of the problem, or the "gist of the dispute"." tn my view the authorities emphasise that the Court is required to assess the essence or reality of the claim. The Court is entitled to analyse the substance of the allegations, not merely their form" Although the Court must assume that the pleaded facts are true, that does not mean that the Court is prevented from considering the legal consequences of the pleaded facts in a realistic fashion. Footnotes: 46. As it was put by Gilbert J in the more recent decision of Ecostore Company Ltd v Worth [2017] NZHC 1480; and see also Pain Management, above n 33, at [23], and BD Grange, above n 34, at [88]. 47. This proposition is well established with regard to strikeout applications and jurisdiction arguments: New Zealand Social Credit Political League Inc v O'Brien [1984]1 NZLR 84 (CA) at 95; Collier v Butterworths of New Zealand (1997) 11 PRNZ 581 (HC) at 586; Green v Matheson [1989]3 NZLR 564 (CA) ; and in this Court, Clark v NCR (NZ) Corporation [2006] ERNZ 401, at [35] and [37]. [42] At the heart of the claims in this proceeding and on appeal to the High Court is a challenge to the correctness of the factual determinations made by this court. In each case, the enquiry is as to the sufficiency of evidence that was before the Court. [43] We consider that the application for rehearing by RPL does invite the Environment Court to come to a different view from the High Court on the relevance of the options document to the sufficiency of evidence on matters on which we made findings of fact. [44] The appeal before Justice Nation concerned "whether or not there were errors of law in the way the Environment Court dealt with relevant issues before it on the evidence which was then available". 31 We do not understand that it is RPL's intention to invite this court to revisit our decision in light of the new evidence concerning a dual taxiway. This question has been dismissed by the High Court. Rather, RPL says the options identified in the document raise doubt about the reliability of evidence which this court accepted when its making factual findings. Is this the same question considered by the High Court? 30 Performance Cleaners All Property Services Wellington Ltd v Chinan [2017] NZEmpC 152 at [85]. 31 [2018] NZHC 269 at [164].
12 12 We consider that it is and that the High Court determined this question finding that the options document did not demonstrate a factual error in the findings in the Environment Court." [45J Expanding, we note that at [5.1J of the amended notice of appeal RPL raises a question of law whether this court erred in determining that QAC had given adequate consideration to alternatives (s 171 (1 )(b)). This pleading does not challenge the sufficiency of evidence. The High Court held this matter could not be pursued as no party had appealed the Environment Court's earlier substantive decisions. 33 It seems doubtful in these circumstances, that the High Court did consider the relevancy of the options document when determining this question. If it did not, then RPL is arguably free to raise the matter on an application for rehearing. [46J The matter does not end here. There is a close nexus among the questions of law before the High Court, including those questions going to sufficiency of evidence to support the Environment Court's fact-finding. Over several years the Environment Court has dealt with considerable and complex interrelated questions of fact and opinion. RPL describes its appeal as placing "discrete" questions of law for determination by the High Court. 34 Traversing nearly all aspects of the court's decision-making since 2014 the questions are not, in our view, discrete. [47J Directly relevant to the question of whether QAC gave adequate consideration to alternative sites is the question at [5.2J of the amended notice of appeal: Is the case one in which the only rea sonable conclusion contradicts th e determination that undertaking the work on QAC land for GA purposes would not promote th e sustainable management of natural and physical purposes. This question does contest the sufficiency of evidence which the Environment Court relied on to make a finding of fact and goes to the heart of the enquiry under s 171 (1 )(b). [48J The broader context of this question is important. We have said, and say again, the enquiries under ss 171(1)(b) and (c) are inter-related. That is because if there is an ",-<- - 'Y..~ 32 ~~I' [2018] NZHC 269 at[164). (r;~,j ;:::{{:::J 33 Remarkables Park Ltd v Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2018] NZHC 269 at [75] and [86].,i>; I:'.,':':.''''' l. ~" : J 34 RPL Strike Out submissions at [25]. ~n '\J f,"..,. :' i '~~ a ~ PIi\l,J,. '.' t;.",:. ~ }~ \i~i \. ~'~fi~ - I <7", t;lv~'ijii';;',@. \.. ~ /. :,\"vl " -~17' "',_._- \~(;;/ '-'" C01} 1'[ 01' " "'-----
13 13 alternative site for undertaking the work that is owned by QAC, this begs the question whether the requirement for RPL's land is reasonably necessary.35 Bringing to account RPL's legitimate expectation fairness, requires the NoR be cancelled if undertaking the work on QAC's land would meet the statutory criteria and achieve the statute's purpose. 36 [49] RPL had submitted the options document was directly relevant to the question of law at [5.2]. That was not the High Court's view. The High Court held there was a reasonable evidential basis for the Environment Court's conclusion. 37 [50] We accept QAC's submission that the claims are in substance the same in both courts. This is most plainly the case where RPL challenged the sufficiency of evidence upon which we made our factual findings, arguing the options document was relevant to these determinations. As we have found in the application for rehearing, the options document does not disclose new and important information or a change in circumstances that in either case might have affected our decision. We have no reason to demur with the ratio decidendi, at paragraphs [157]-[163] of the High Court's decision, which accords with our own view of the relevance of the options document. [51] To conclude, so that the full import of RPL's legitimate expectation on the application for rehearing could be brought to bear on the application for rehearing, and in response to RPL's continuing concerns as to fairness, we considered the application for rehearing without prior deliberation as to whether the substance of its claims have been considered by another jurisdiction. In the normal course, we would have considered the interlocutory application and, as indicated, would have struck the application for rehearing out on the basis that it is an abuse of process. Directions [52] I CostsCs>n both applications are reserved ~ ~':0. \~~.~rthwick Envir nment Judge 35 [2014J NZEnvC 244 at [90J [91J. 36 [2014J NZEnvC 244 at [92]. 37 Remarkables Park Ltd v Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [2018J NZHC 269 at [115J.
IN 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 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 informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA35/2018 [2018] NZCA 240. OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA35/2018 [2018] NZCA 240 BETWEEN AND OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant PRECINCT PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 24 May 2018
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 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 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 informationI 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 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 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 information1-6 October 'J...0\2.. BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT. Decision No. [2012] NZEnvC ;(3 1 ENV WLG
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT Decision No. [2012] NZEnvC ;(3 1 ENV -2011-WLG-000090 IN THE MATTER of an appeal under Clause 14 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN MOTOR MACHINISTS
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 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC 562. IN THE MATTER OF the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2010-409-000559 [2016] NZHC 562 IN THE MATTER OF the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the bankruptcy of DAVID IAN HENDERSON
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2018] NZEmpC 51 EMPC 328/2017. IBRAHIM KOCATÜRK First Applicant. GÜLER KOCATÜRK Second Applicant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2018] NZEmpC 51 EMPC 328/2017 an application for leave to extend time to file a challenge IBRAHIM KOCATÜRK First Applicant GÜLER KOCATÜRK
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 COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA575/07 [2007] NZCA 512
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA575/07 [2007] NZCA 512 BETWEEN AND AND AND ANTONS TRAWLING LIMITED First Appellant ESPERANCE FISHING CO LIMITED AND ORNEAGAN DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Second Appellant
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 152 EMPC 323/2015. Plaintiff. AND MARRA CONSTRUCTION (2004) LIMITED Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN [2016] NZEmpC 152 EMPC 323/2015 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority FREDRICK PRETORIUS Plaintiff AND MARRA CONSTRUCTION
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-2016-404-002473 [2016] NZHC 2407 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of an application for an order that a company, PRI Flight
More informationNEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. Decision No. [2009] NZLCDT 9 LCDT 08/2009. IN THE MATTER of the Law Practitioners Act 1982
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No. [2009] NZLCDT 9 LCDT 08/2009 IN THE MATTER of the Law Practitioners Act 1982 BETWEEN CANTERBURY DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY AND DAVID ALAN
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2011] NZEmpC 56 CRC 17/10. SEALORD GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2011] NZEmpC 56 CRC 17/10 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN AND SEALORD GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff SERVICE
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14. LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND AND AND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14 challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority of an application
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 203 ARC 98/11. AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for costs. Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 203 ARC 98/11 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for costs BETWEEN
More informationBEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY
[2018] NZSSAA 010 Reference No. SSA 009/17 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 informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Braden v. Sinar, 2007-Ohio-4527.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) CYNTHIA BRADEN C. A. No. 23656 Appellant v. DR. DAVID SINAR, DDS., et
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN. ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS LIMITED AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL No. 214 of 2010 BETWEEN ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] APPELLANT AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2013] NZEmpC 175 WRC 27/12. Judge Couch Judge Inglis Judge Perkins JUDGMENT OF FULL COURT
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2013] NZEmpC 175 WRC 27/12 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority TRANZIT COACHLINES WAIRARAPA LIMITED
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 informationHEARD at AUCKLAND on 2 November 2015 with subsequent written submissions RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE NATURE OF THIS APPEAL
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZREADT 3 READT 008/15 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN an appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 JOHN EICHELBAUM of Auckland, Barrister
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 15 ARC 84/12. VULCAN STEEL LIMITED Plaintiff. KIREAN WONNOCOTT Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 15 ARC 84/12 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN AND VULCAN STEEL LIMITED Plaintiff KIREAN WONNOCOTT
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 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 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 EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11. Plaintiff. VINCENT SINGH Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 34 ARC 73/11 IN THE MATTER OF an application for compliance order BETWEEN AND NOEL COVENTRY Plaintiff VINCENT SINGH Defendant Hearing: 23 February 2012 (Heard
More informationIMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Ar Heard at Field House On: 17 November 2004 Dictated 17 November 2004 Notified: 18 January 2005 [IS IS (Concession made by rep representative) Sierra Leone [2005] UKI UKIAT 00009 IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL
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 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 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 informationSUBMISSIONS ON THE DEPARTMENTAL REPORT FOR THE JUSTICE COMMITTEE ON THE ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2017
SUBMISSIONS ON THE DEPARTMENTAL REPORT FOR THE JUSTICE COMMITTEE ON THE ARBITRATION AMENDMENT BILL 2017 To Justice and Electoral Select Committee Parliament Buildings Wellington Submissions by Sir David
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 informationONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, WILTON-SIEGEL, MYERS JJ. ) ) ) Respondents )
CITATION: Papp v. Stokes 2018 ONSC 1598 DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-17-0000047-00 DATE: 20180309 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT SACHS, WILTON-SIEGEL, MYERS JJ. BETWEEN: Adam Papp
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2013] NZHC 2608
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2013-485-877 [2013] NZHC 2608 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and Part 20 of the High Court
More informationHELI-LOGGING LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) First Appellant
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA646/2015 [2017] NZCA 196 BETWEEN AND AND AND HELI-LOGGING LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) First Appellant MARK WAYNE FORD IN HIS CAPACITY AS TRUSTEE
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 October 2017 On 25 October 2017 Before Deputy
More information[2011] NZLCDT 41 LCDT 006/011 and 007/011. the Law Practitioners Act 1982 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
BEFORE THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZLCDT 41 LCDT 006/011 and 007/011 UNDER the Law Practitioners Act 1982 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 IN THE MATTER
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT SHERRY CLEMENS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN CLEMENS, deceased, Appellant, v. PETER NAMNUM, M.D., individually, PETER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV 2009 409 2763 BETWEEN AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Plaintiff ERUERUITI INVESTMENTS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 1 April 2009 Appearances:
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 30 March 2015 On 15 April Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BIRRELL. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Piccadilly Decision Promulgated On 30 March 2015 On 15 April 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BIRRELL Between
More informationPart VII. Part V of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure Arbitration. [The following translation is not an official document]
Part VII Part V of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure Arbitration [The following translation is not an official document] 627 Polish Code of Civil Procedure. Part five. Arbitration [The following translation
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 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 Determination Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationBEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON [2014] NZACA 10
BEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON [2014] NZACA 10 ACA 9/13 IN THE MATTER AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 of an appeal pursuant to s.107
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV [2016] NZDC HARI AROHA RAPATA Appellant
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV-2014-059-000133 [2016] NZDC 3321 BETWEEN AND HARI AROHA RAPATA Appellant NEW ZEALAND LAND TRANSPORT AGENCY Respondent Hearing:
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2005-404-006984 BETWEEN AND STELLAR PROJECTS LIMITED Appellant NICK GJAJA PLUMBING LIIMITED Respondent Hearing: 10 April 2006 Appearances: Mr J C
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 2178 C.D. 2013 : Submitted: October 6, 2014 John Hummel, Jr., : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
[Cite as McIntyre v. McIntyre, 2005-Ohio-6940.] STATE OF OHIO, COLUMBIANA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT JANE M. MCINTYRE N.K.A. JANE M. YOAKUM, VS. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, ROBERT R. MCINTYRE,
More informationVN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 29 June 2010 Before Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC 334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV 2014-485-10920 [2015] NZHC 334 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND an application for judicial review under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 and s 27(2)
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACT. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACT Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationAppellant. FAMILY COURT First Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA604/2012 [2015] NZCA 470 BETWEEN AND M HAYES Appellant FAMILY COURT First Respondent JUDITH GUERIN Second Respondent Hearing: 10 June 2015 Court: Counsel: Judgment:
More informationJUDGMENT. Central Broadcasting Services Ltd and another (Appellants) v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)
Hilary Term [2018] UKPC 6 Privy Council Appeal No 0100 of 2014 JUDGMENT Central Broadcasting Services Ltd and another (Appellants) v The Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (Respondent) (Trinidad and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Woods v Australian Taxation Office & Ors [2017] QCA 28 PARTIES: SONYA JOANNE WOODS (applicant) v AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE ABN 51 824 753 556 (first respondent) ROBERT
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between LIDIJA DESPOTOVIC ANDJELA DESPOTOVIC (ANONYMITY ORDER NOT MADE) and
IAC-AH-VP/DP-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 17 th December 2015 On 6 th January 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationMarley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd
Page 1 The West Indian Reports/Volume 46 /Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd - (1995) 46 WIR 233 Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd (1995) 46 WIR 233 JUDICIAL
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PRO9VINCIAL DIVISION) Emergency Medical Supplies & Training CC
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PRO9VINCIAL DIVISION) REPORTABLE CASE No: A15/2007 In the matter between: Emergency Medical Supplies & Training CC Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV Appellant. MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2005-404-007398 UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the Resource Management Act 1991 ("the Act") of an appeal brought pursuant to s 299 of the Act
More informationCOSTS DECISION [2018] NZSSAA 008. Reference No. SSA 086/15 and SSA062/16. IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND
[2018] NZSSAA 008 Reference No. SSA 086/15 and SSA062/16 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX of Christchurch against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 28 November 2006 On 27 February Before
SS (s104(4)(b) of 2002 Act = application not limited) Nigeria [2007] UKAIT 00026 Asylum and Immigration Tribunal THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 28 November 2006
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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A M MURRAY. Between MR NEEAJ KUMAR (ANONYMITY HAS NOT BEEN DIRECTED) and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 13 September 2018 On 9 November 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A M MURRAY
More informationArbitration CAS 2015/A/4288 El Jaish Sports Club v. Giovanni Funiciello, award of 28 April 2016
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4288 award of 28 April 2016 Panel: Mr Ivaylo Dermendjiev (Bulgaria), Sole Arbitrator Basketball Fees of a FIBA licensed
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 th May 2016 On 15 th July Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/08265/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 th May 2016 On 15 th July 2016 Before DEPUTY
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 informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Stubberfield v Lippiatt & Anor [2007] QCA 90 PARTIES: JOHN RICHARD STUBBERFIELD (plaintiff/appellant) v FREDERICK WALTON LIPPIATT (first defendant/first respondent)
More informationICE SA (formerly named TKS s.a.) Appellant. Ellen France, Stevens and Wild JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA740/2012 [2013] NZCA 654 BETWEEN AND ICE SA (formerly named TKS s.a.) Appellant SWATCH AG (SWATCH SA) (SWATCH LTD) Respondent Hearing: 26 November 2013 Court: Counsel:
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DAVID WALLACE ZIETSMAN MULTICHOICE AFRICA (PTY) SECOND RESPONDENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 771/2010 In the matter between: DAVID WALLACE ZIETSMAN APPELLANT and ELECTRONIC MEDIA NETWORK LIMITED MULTICHOICE AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED FIRST
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 informationProcedures for Protest to New York State and City Tribunals
September 25, 1997 Procedures for Protest to New York State and City Tribunals By: Glenn Newman This new feature of the New York Law Journal will highlight cases involving New York State and City tax controversies
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between AH (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
AA/06781/2014 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 13 April 2016 On 22 July 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
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. ARCELORMITTAL POINT LISAS LIMITED (formerly CARIBBEAN ISPAT LIMITED) Appellant AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 211 of 2009 BETWEEN ARCELORMITTAL POINT LISAS LIMITED (formerly CARIBBEAN ISPAT LIMITED) Appellant AND STEEL WORKERS UNION OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Akinci (paragraph 21 HC 510 correct approach) [2012] UKUT 00266(IAC) Before
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Akinci (paragraph 21 HC 510 correct approach) [2012] UKUT 00266(IAC) Heard at Field House On 3 July 2012 Determination
More informationCONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Appeal No. 401/2007 Ana GOREY v. Secretary General Assisted by: The Administrative Tribunal, composed of: Ms Elisabeth
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991
BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH ENV-2018-CHC- I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA OTAUTAHI ROHE IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal under Clause
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA PAUL FULLER, MARK CZYZYK, MICHELE CZYZYK, AND ROSE NEALON
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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th February 2016 On 19 th April Before
IAC-AH-DP-V2 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th February 2016 On 19 th April 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2013] NZHC 387. JONATHON VAN KLEEF Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2012-485-2135 [2013] NZHC 387 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY WAY OF CASE STATED FROM THE DETERMINATION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY AT
More informationEDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV [2016] NZDC 2055
EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV-2014-059-000156 [2016] NZDC 2055 BETWEEN AND JAMES VELASCO BUENAVENTURA Plaintiff ROWENA GONZALES BURGESS Defendant Hearing:
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Bagral. Between. and. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 28 July 2017 On 27 October 2017 Before Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Bagral Between
More informationACCENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Appellant. ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent. 18, 19 and 20 March 2014 (further submissions received 15 April 2014)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA541/2013 [2014] NZCA 351 BETWEEN AND ACCENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Appellant ATTORNEY-GENERAL First Respondent COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Second Respondent Hearing:
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 13, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D15-1047 Lower Tribunal No. 08-3100 Florida Insurance
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. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 30 June 2017 On 4 July Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SMITH.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: RP/00079/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 30 June 2017 On 4 July 2017 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationTable of Contents Section Page
Arbitration Regulations 2015 Table of Contents Section Page Part 1 : General... 1 1. Title... 1 2. Legislative authority... 1 3. Application of the Regulations... 1 4. Date of enactment... 1 5. Date of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA
Citation: R. v. Moman (R.), 2011 MBCA 34 Date: 20110413 Docket: AR 10-30-07421 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN ) C. J. Mainella and ) O. A. Siddiqui (Respondent) Applicant
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 informationAli (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHALKLEY. Between MANSOOR ALI.
IAC-FH-GJ-V6 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 20 August 2012 Determination Promulgated Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationKerry M. Wormwood v. Batching Systems, Inc., et al., No. 874, September Term, 1998 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRANSMITTAL OF RECORD --
HEADNOTE: Kerry M. Wormwood v. Batching Systems, Inc., et al., No. 874, September Term, 1998 WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS TRANSMITTAL OF RECORD -- A failure to transmit a record timely, in literal violation
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 informationFIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL ASYLUM SUPPORT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL ASYLUM SUPPORT Address: 2 nd Floor Anchorage House 2 Clove Crescent London E14 2BE Telephone: 020 7538 6171 Fax: 0126 434 7902 Appeal Number AS/14/11/32141 UKVI Ref. Appellant s Ref.
More information