IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA112/06 [2007] NZCA 479. Appellant. Hammond, Chambers and Arnold JJ. Judgment: 1 November 2007 at 11.
|
|
- Maria Harmon
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 Hearing: 9 August 2007 Court: Counsel: Hammond, Chambers and Arnold JJ D K Wilson for Appellant J A MacGillivray for Respondents Judgment: 1 November 2007 at am JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A B C The appeal is allowed in part. It is confirmed that the respondents are entitled to retain the sum claimed from the appellant on settlement as compensation for exchange rate losses, save that they must now repay to the appellant (if they have not already done so) the sum of $23,849.95, together with interest at 7.5% from the date of settlement until the date of payment. There is no order for costs in this Court. ROCHIS LTD V ZACHERY ANDREW CHAMBERS, JULIAN DAVID CHAMBERS, JOCELYN ZELPHA CHAMBERS AND KIMBERLY FAITH CHAMBERS CA CA112/06 1 November 2007
2 REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Arnold J) [1] The appellant purchased a subdivision on the shore of Lake Taupo for $6,750,000. The vendors were the respondents, who held four lots in the subdivision, and a company called Adele Holdings Limited (Adele), which held 22 lots. [2] The parties entered into an agreement for sale and purchase (REINZ/ADLS 7ed (2) July 1999) dated 9 July 2003 (the agreement). Clause 1.3(1) of the agreement provided: If there is more than one purchaser or vendor, the liability of the purchasers or of the vendors, as the case may be, is joint and several. Clause 16 provided: The purchase price of the property is determined by the vendors and agreed with the purchaser on the basis that NZ$1.00 = US$0.63c, with the intent that on settlement date or such earlier date as the purchaser may elect, after giving 5 clear working days notice to the vendors of its intention to do so, the vendors will receive no less than US$4,252,500 or the equivalent sum in NZD from the purchaser of the property. The purchaser will pay the vendors no less than US$4,252,500 or the equivalent sum in NZD for the above property on or before settlement date, on the basis set out above. [3] The appellant paid a deposit of $400,000 in accordance with the terms of the agreement. This left a balance of $6,350,000 to be paid on settlement. Settlement was due to occur a year after the agreement was entered into, on 9 July However the appellant did not settle the transaction until 23 July 2004, that is, 14 days late. The appellant paid interest at the contractual rate of 18 per cent on $6,350,000 for that 14 day period (ie, $43,841.10) on account of the late settlement. There is no dispute about that.
3 [4] However, the vendors also required that the appellant pay a further $236, This sum reflected a drop in the US/NZ exchange rate over the 14 day period, from US$0.6595/NZ$1.00 on 9 July 2004 to US$0.6358/NZ$1.00 on 23 July The appellant paid the $236, under protest in order to effect settlement, reserving the right to bring action to recover this sum. [5] A few days later the vendors transferred NZ$6,550,000 into US dollars at an exchange rate of US$0.6358/NZ$1.00. [6] Shortly after that, Adele was wound up and removed from the Companies Register at the request of its shareholders. [7] The appellant then issued proceedings against the respondents to recover the $236, A week before trial the respondents advised the appellant that there had been an error in the calculations, so that the exchange rate loss figure had been overstated by $29, The respondents accepted that they were liable to refund their pro rata share of this amount, which they calculated at $6, They repaid this amount to the appellant. However, the appellant s position was that, if the exchange rate loss was a proper head of compensation, the respondents should repay the full amount of the over-payment, on the basis of cl 1.3(1) of the agreement. [8] Keane J dismissed the appellant s claim for the recovery of the $236, (less the $6, previously refunded): HC HAM CIV May The Judge identified three issues for decision (at [7]): (a) Were the vendors entitled to compensation for the drop in the value of the US dollar relative to the NZ dollar over the 14 day period of the delayed settlement? (b) If the vendors were entitled to claim compensation for the exchange rate drop, was their claim extinguished or reduced by virtue of the interest paid for late settlement? (Before us, Mr Wilson for the appellant said that he did not argue that the payment of interest
4 extinguished the vendors claim for exchange losses; it merely reduced it.) (c) If the appellant had overpaid any amount to the vendors, were the respondents liable for the full amount of the overpayment, or simply for a pro rata portion of it? In other words, was the vendors liability joint and several? [9] The Judge held: (a) The vendors were entitled to be compensated for the exchange rate drop over the 14 day period. (b) That entitlement was not affected by the fact that the vendors were entitled to, and received, interest calculated at 18% on the balance of the purchase price for 14 days. (c) In view of his findings on the first two issues, he did not need to resolve the joint and several liability issue. However, he indicated that his view was that liability was several, so that the respondents were liable only for their pro rata share of any overpayment. [10] On appeal, the appellant challenged the first two findings and, in relation to the third issue, maintained its position at trial that the vendors were jointly and severally liable under the agreement, so that the respondents were liable for the full amount of any overpayment. [11] In relation to that third issue, the respondents counsel, Mr MacGillivray, filed a memorandum shortly before the hearing of the appeal advising that the respondents conceded that their liability under the agreement was joint and several. Accordingly the respondents were obliged to repay in full any overpayment made by the appellant.
5 [12] This concession has an immediate effect in relation to the accepted overpayment of $29, It is that the respondents must pay the outstanding sum of $23, (ie, $29, less the $6, already paid), plus interest. To that extent at least, the appeal must succeed. [13] We turn now to the remaining issues. Were the vendors entitled to recover compensation for the exchange rate drop? [14] Mr Wilson s principal contention for the appellant can be stated briefly. It is that, in terms of the principles set out in the leading authority Isaac Naylor & Sons Ltd v New Zealand Co-operative Wool Marketing Association Ltd [1981] 1 NZLR 361 (CA), exchange rate losses are not a recoverable head of damage in the present case. [15] Isaac Naylor & Sons Ltd concerned international wool transactions. The defendant was late in taking delivery of wool which it had contracted to buy from the plaintiff. As a result the payment for the wool was also delayed. In terms of the contractual arrangements, payment for the wool was to be in pounds sterling, but the defendant was aware that the plaintiff s practice was to convert such payments to New Zealand currency and remit the funds to New Zealand. Over the period of the delay, the value of the pound sterling declined against the New Zealand dollar, with the result that the plaintiff received less in New Zealand dollars for the pounds it was paid than it would have had delivery been taken on the due date. The plaintiff sued for, and recovered, the exchange loss. The defendant appealed to this Court, without success. [16] This Court accepted that exchange rate losses are, in principle, recoverable in a breach of contract claim. To be recoverable, such losses had to fall within one or other branch of the well-known rule in Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 at 354 5; 156 ER 145 at 151 per Alderson B. That is, the loss had to be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arising naturally, ie, according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the
6 contract, as the probable result of the breach of it. Special circumstances applying to a particular contract, if known to both parties to it, may affect what is held to have been in their contemplation as flowing from a breach of contract. [17] This Court held that the exchange losses in Isaac Naylor & Sons Ltd fell within the first branch of this rule as such losses were fairly and reasonably within the contemplation of the parties as international wool traders, that is, they arose in the ordinary course of the trade (per Cooke J at 366-7, per Richardson J at 372 and per McMullin J at 382). Richardson J also held that the losses fell within the second branch of the rule as the defendant knew that the plaintiff would be remitting the funds to New Zealand and would be detrimentally affected by adverse fluctuations in the exchange rate as a result of late payment (at 372-3). [18] This decision was applied by Henry J in Volk v Hirstlens (NZ) Ltd [1987] 1 NZLR 385 (HC). There the plaintiff, a United States resident, claimed for a shortfall in royalties which he said were owed to him by the defendant under two contracts. Part of his claim was for exchange losses. Henry J held that these losses were recoverable. The contracts provided that the royalties were to be paid in New Zealand currency, but then said that the parties would, at the plaintiff s request, co-operate to procure the consent of the Reserve Bank to the transfer of the funds from New Zealand. In these circumstances, the Judge said, it was within the contemplation of the parties as reasonable people that the plaintiff might transfer the NZ funds he received into US dollars and also that there might be exchange rate fluctuations over time. [19] Mr Wilson argued that the exchange losses were not recoverable in the present case for three essential reasons: (a) Unlike the international wool transactions in Isaac Naylor & Sons Ltd, the transaction in the present case did not have an international dimension, either in terms of subject matter or parties. (b) The foreign exchange losses were not in contemplation of the parties at the time the contract was entered into. In this context, Mr Wilson
7 argued that cl 16 simply set a floor for the purchase price (which was in NZ dollars) by reference to the value of the US dollar against the NZ dollar. (c) The principle of nominalism applied. [20] As we see it, the third point is simply the result of accepting the previous two points. That is, it does not raise some consideration that is not already raised by the first two points. [21] Recovery of exchange rate losses will not, in the ordinary course of things, be a recoverable head of loss where a purchaser is late in settling a land transaction. But in the present case there were two features which the respondents said brought them within the scope of the rule in Hadley v Baxendale. First, the agreement contained cl 16. Second, evidence was given by one of the respondents at trial that he had advised one of the appellant s principals before the agreement was made of the likelihood that the proceeds of the sale would be transferred offshore. This was put to the principal in cross-examination and he denied it. The Judge made no finding on the point. [22] For our part, we consider that the matter can be resolved simply on the basis of cl 16. Consequently, we need not address the factual uncertainty. [23] As we have said, Mr Wilson submitted that cl 16 simply set a floor for the NZ dollar price by reference to a US dollar figure. If the NZ dollar figure exceeded that floor, cl 16 had no impact or relevance. [24] We do not accept that submission. While cl 16 did set a floor we consider that the fact that the floor was set in US dollars indicated that the vendors were interested in the relationship between the US dollar and the NZ dollar and that they contemplated that they would or might exchange the NZ dollars they received on settlement for US dollars. We can see no other reason for the stipulation in cl 16. We see this case as analogous to Volk v Hirstlens (NZ) Ltd.
8 [25] We consider that the presence of cl 16 in the agreement means that it was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties that, if the appellant delayed in settling, the vendors might suffer loss as a result of a change in the exchange rate, as in fact they did when they transferred the funds shortly after receipt. The exchange rate loss is accordingly recoverable. Impact of interest payment on ability to claim exchange losses [26] In his written submissions, Mr Wilson summarised the argument for the appellant on this aspect of the case as follows: (a) Clause 3.9 of the agreement provided for interest for late settlement. (b) As a result of the delay in settlement the vendors were entitled to interest at 18% on the balance of the purchase price for the period of the delay (14 days). (c) If the vendors were entitled to claim exchange losses, they were obliged to give a credit for the amount that they received as interest for late payment. This was said to flow from cl 3.9(1) of the agreement. He made it clear that he did not argue that the effect of cl 3.9(1) was that the respondents claim for interest for late payment deprived them of any claim for exchange rate losses (if it otherwise existed) (see Hoskins v Rule [1952] NZLR 827 (SC)). [27] Clause 3.9(1) of the agreement provided: If the vendor is not in default and if any portion of the purchase price is not paid upon the due date for payment: (1) The purchaser shall pay to the vendor interest at the interest rate for late settlement on the portion of the purchase price so unpaid for the period from the due date for payment until payment ( the default period ); but nevertheless this stipulation is without prejudice to any of the vendor s rights or remedies including any right to claim for additional expenses and damages.
9 [28] As we understood it, Mr Wilson s argument was that this clause was a liquidated damages clause. Under it a vendor, on late settlement by a purchaser, was entitled to claim interest as liquidated damages and any additional expenses and damages. This meant that the vendor was only entitled to recover what further amount of loss there was in excess of the sum already payable by virtue of the liquidated damages element of the clause, ie, the interest paid had to be deducted from the amount payable on account of other losses. Mr Wilson derived support for this argument from McMorland Sale of Land (2ed 2000) at [11.19](c). There Dr McMorland discusses the effect of cl 3.9(1). He says: Similarly, the vendor cannot recover specific items of loss or expense incurred as a result of the delay as well as the interest as provided by the clause as liquidated damages. It is a matter of election. The vendor can claim only the liquidated damages as provided for by way of interest in the agreement, or may sue for general damages, but not both. (Footnote omitted.) As authority for the proposition in the first two sentences of this extract Dr McMorland cited the ADLS Rulings Manual (1992) at [4.16] and [12.28]. [29] We make the preliminary observation that the current version of the ADLS Rulings Manual no longer contains the particular ruling relied on by Dr McMorland. [30] More importantly, if the extract from Dr McMorland s book has the meaning which Mr Wilson ascribes to it, we do not agree with it. The agreement identifies the interest rate for late settlement as being 18%. Interest at that rate is payable by the vendor as well as the purchaser in some circumstances (eg, cl 9.4(3) of the agreement). We accept that cl 3.9 can be characterised as a liquidated damages clause as far as interest for loss of use of money is concerned. That is the type of loss that vendors will most commonly suffer where a purchaser settles late. But on its face, the clause makes it clear that recovery for that type of loss under the agreed formula does not preclude the vendor from recovering other loss or damage in addition. Put another way, the liquidated damages part of the clause is not comprehensive as it does not purport to cover all forms of loss. We consider that the case falls within the principle discussed in McGregor on Damages (17ed 2002) at [13-017]:
10 The claimant will be entitled to sue for unliquidated damages in the ordinary way, in addition to suing for the liquidated damages, if other breaches have occurred outside those which fall within the ambit of the liquidated damages provision or, it seems, if only part of the loss arising from a single breach is regarded as falling within the provision s ambit. (Emphasis added.) [31] Mr Wilson says that the amount to which the vendors were entitled as compensation for the exchange rate variation must be reduced by the amount that they recovered by way of interest for late payment. But the two amounts compensate for different losses. Interest compensates for the loss of use of the funds whereas the amount attributable to the exchange rate fluctuation compensates for the loss flowing from the inability to effect a funds transfer on one day as opposed to another. Mr Wilson s approach would, as Mr MacGillivray submits, lead to the vendors receiving less than full compensation for their losses. [32] Mr Wilson sought to counter this point by suggesting that the 18% interest rate was a high one. That may be so, but it does not alter the principle. [33] It follows that we consider that the vendors were entitled to recover under cl 3.9 both an amount by way of interest for loss of use of the balance of the purchase price and an amount to compensate them for the exchange rate loss suffered as a consequence of the appellant s breach. Decision [34] As we have said, in light to the respondent s concession, the appeal must succeed in part. The respondents must pay the appellant the sum of $23,849.95, which is the outstanding balance of the $29, overpayment. Interest at the rate of 7.5% is to be paid on this sum from the date of settlement until the date of payment. [35] As to costs, the respondents have succeeded on the principal issues but did made the significant concession just referred to shortly before the appeal was argued, leading to a further payment to the appellant. In those circumstances, we consider
11 that costs in this Court should lie where they fall and costs in the High Court should remain as fixed by Keane J. Solicitors: McKay Hill Gale, Taupo for Appellant Tompkins Wake, Hamilton for Respondents
IAN 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 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 informationBRIAN MURRAY DAKEN Appellant. MURRAY EDWIN NIGEL WIIG Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Asher J)
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
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 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 HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CIV CLAIRE AVON RAE HOLLIS Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CIV 2009-441-000074 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the Tax Administration Act 1994 and the Income Tax Act 1994 CLAIRE AVON RAE HOLLIS Appellant THE COMMISSIONER
More informationWORLDWIDE NZ LLC Respondent. Memoranda: 29 October 2014 and 14 November A C Sorrell and S L Robertson for Appellant M J Fisher for Respondent
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA834/2011 [2016] NZCA 282 BETWEEN AND NEW ZEALAND VENUE AND EVENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Appellant WORLDWIDE NZ LLC Respondent Memoranda: 29 October 2014 and 14 November
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 BARBADOS MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY. and [1] MICHAEL PIGOTT [2] WEST MALL LIMITED
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO.12 OF 2004 BETWEEN: BARBADOS MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY and [1] MICHAEL PIGOTT [2] WEST MALL LIMITED Before: The Hon. Mr. Brian Alleyne, SC
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 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 informationJUDGMENT. claimed against the defendant money due and owing under two loan accounts. Under
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE HCA No S-496 of 2005/ CV 2007-01692 BETWEEN REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED CLAIMANT AND SELWYN PETERS DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE
More informationWinkelmann, Courtney and Clifford JJ. N H Malarao and K M Wakelin for Appellants No appearance for Respondents JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA198/2015 [2016] NZCA 103 BETWEEN VIVIEN JUDITH MADSEN-RIES AND DAVID STUART VANCE AS LIQUIDATORS OF PETRANZ LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) First Appellant PETRANZ LIMITED
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2015] NZEmpC 121 EMPC 284/2014. PAMELA SCHOFIELD Second Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2015] NZEmpC 121 EMPC 284/2014 proceedings removed in full from the Employment Relations Authority PAUL MORGAN First Plaintiff PAMELA
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 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 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 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 informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 57/2014 [2015] NZSC 59. NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION Appellant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 57/2014 [2015] NZSC 59 BETWEEN AND NEW ZEALAND FIRE SERVICE COMMISSION Appellant INSURANCE BROKERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED First Respondent VERO INSURANCE
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 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 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE H. DAVID MANLEY, ) ) No. 390, 2008 Defendant Below, ) Appellant, ) Court Below: Superior Court ) of the State of Delaware in v. ) and for Sussex County ) MAS
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 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 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 informationJANET ELSIE LOWE Respondent. J C Holden and M J R Conway for Appellants P Cranney and A McInally for Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
- IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA169/2015 [2016] NZCA 369 BETWEEN DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH, MINISTRY OF HEALTH First Appellant CHIEF EXECUTIVE, CAPITAL AND COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Second
More informationThe facts of these cases are described in detail in our judgment of 7 July 1999 and we do not repeat them now.
R v Allen COURT OF APPEAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION LAWS LJ, MOSES J AND JUDGE CRANE Alan Newman QC and James Kessler for Allen. Amanda Hardy and Tina Davey for Dimsey. Peter Rook QC and Jonathan Fisher for the
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Squires v President of Industrial Court Qld [2002] QSC 272 PARTIES: FILE NO: S3990 of 2002 DIVISION: PHILLIP ALAN SQUIRES (applicant/respondent) v PRESIDENT OF INDUSTRIAL
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 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 AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV CLAVERDON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Defendant. P Chambers for Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2009-404-6292 BETWEEN AND HOUSING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff CLAVERDON DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 2 February 2010 Counsel: Judgment:
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 EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 68 EMPC 248/2015. MATTHEW PHILLIPS Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND [2016] NZEmpC 68 EMPC 248/2015 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority MODERN TRANSPORT ENGINEERS (2002) LIMITED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV NAJDA COURT & ORS Respondent RESERVED JUDGMENT OF MILLER J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 5284-03 BETWEEN AND MACLENNAN REALTY LIMITED Appellant NAJDA COURT & ORS Respondent Hearing: 18 February 2004 Appearances: J Waymouth for Appellant
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 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 informationNo. 104,835 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. E. LEON DAGGETT, Appellant, SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
No. 104,835 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS E. LEON DAGGETT, Appellant, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OF THE UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY/KANSAS CITY, KANSAS, Appellee. SYLLABUS
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 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 informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KOOTENAI AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE CO., Plaintiffs, vs. ACCEPTANCE INSURANCE CO.. Defendants. Case No.
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 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 informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: RJK Enterprises P/L v Webb & Anor [2006] QSC 101 PARTIES: FILE NO: 2727 of 2006 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: RJK ENTERPRISES PTY LTD ACN 055 443 466 (applicant)
More informationJaff (s.120 notice; statement of additional grounds ) [2012] UKUT 00396(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Jaff (s.120 notice; statement of additional grounds ) [2012] UKUT 00396(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 21 August 2012 Determination Promulgated
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 informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STERLING BANK & TRUST, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 11, 2011 v No. 299136 Oakland Circuit Court MARK A. CANVASSER, LC No. 2010-107906-CK Defendant-Appellant.
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2015COA70 Court of Appeals No. 14CA0782 Boulder County District Court No. 12CV30342 Honorable Andrew Hartman, Judge Steffan Tubbs, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Farmers Insurance Exchange,
More informationGST Treatment of Out-of- Court Settlements: Is There a Forbearance to Sue?
GST Treatment of Out-of- Court Settlements: Is There a Forbearance to Sue? by Ivy Ling Yieng Ping It is common for parties to settle a contractual dispute out of court by way of a settlement agreement.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV Applicant. CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2009-485-1957 BETWEEN AND LUXTA LIMITED Applicant CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 8 February 2010 Appearances: P. Withnall - Counsel
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 informationJUDGMENT. Nelson and others (Appellants) v First Caribbean International Bank (Barbados) Limited (Respondent)
[2014] UKPC 30 Privy Council Appeal No 0043 of 2013 JUDGMENT Nelson and others (Appellants) v First Caribbean International Bank (Barbados) Limited (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of St Lucia before
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2015] NZEmpC 109 EMPC 289/2014. WELLINGTON CITY TRANSPORT LIMITED TRADING AS "GO WELLINGTON" Plaintiff
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2015] NZEmpC 109 EMPC 289/2014 a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority WELLINGTON CITY TRANSPORT LIMITED
More informationSHORTFALL PENALTY UNACCEPTABLE INTERPRETATION AND UNACCEPTABLE TAX POSITION
SHORTFALL PENALTY UNACCEPTABLE INTERPRETATION AND UNACCEPTABLE TAX POSITION 1. SUMMARY 1.1 All legislative references in this statement are to the Tax Administration Act 1994 unless otherwise noted. 1.2
More informationConveyancing and property
Editor: Peter Butt STATUTORY WARFARE, ROUND 2: HAS THE HIGH COURT CONFUSED THE LAW OF ILLEGALITY? In an earlier note in this column ( Statutory warfare? What happens when retail lease legislation collides
More informationDECISION ON A MOTION
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Commission des services financiers de l Ontario BETWEEN: KAMALAVELU VADIVELU Applicant and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY Insurer DECISION ON A
More informationTHE YEAR THAT WAS. Important High Court Insurance Cases In 2010
AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LAW ASSOCIATION (WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BRANCH) Cases presented at Annual General Meeting on 15 December 2010 THE YEAR THAT WAS Important High Court Insurance Cases In 2010 High Court
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 informationOntario Ltd. (c.o.b. Castle Auto Collision & Mechanical Service) v. Certas Insurance, [2016] O.J. No. 264
1218897 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Castle Auto Collision & Mechanical Service) v. Certas Insurance, [2016] O.J. No. Ontario Judgments [2016] O.J. No. 2016 ONSC 354 Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional
More informationARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No ) Under Contract No. N C-9509 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) The Swanson Group, Inc. ) ASBCA No. 54863 ) Under Contract No. N68711-91-C-9509 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
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 informationEleventh Court of Appeals
Opinion filed July 19, 2018 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals No. 11-16-00183-CV RANDY DURHAM, Appellant V. HALLMARK COUNTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee On Appeal from the 358th District Court Ector
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 informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Bazzo v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 71 File number: NSD 1828 of 2016 Judge: ROBERTSON J Date of judgment: 10 February 2017 Catchwords: TAXATION construction of Deed of
More informationCase Name: Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc. Between Trevor Paquette, Plaintiff (Appellant), and TeraGo Networks Inc., Defendant (Respondent)
Page 1 Case Name: Paquette v. TeraGo Networks Inc. Between Trevor Paquette, Plaintiff (Appellant), and TeraGo Networks Inc., Defendant (Respondent) [2016] O.J. No. 4222 2016 ONCA 618 269 A.C.W.S. (3d)
More informationINSURANCE COVERAGE COUNSEL
INSURANCE COVERAGE COUNSEL 2601 AIRPORT DR., SUITE 360 TORRANCE, CA 90505 tel: 310.784.2443 fax: 310.784.2444 www.bolender-firm.com 1. What does it mean to say someone is Cumis counsel or independent counsel?
More informationLim Kitt Ping Lynnette v People s Insurance Co Ltd and another
914 SINGAPORE LAW REPORTS (REISSUE) [1997] 1 SLR(R) Lim Kitt Ping Lynnette v People s Insurance Co Ltd and another [1997] SGHC 122 High Court Suit No 2235 of 1992 Kan Ting Chiu J 11, 12 February; 12 May
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 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 informationTariq. The effect of S. 12 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act Ch. 48:51 The Act is agreed. That term is void as against third
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO HCA No. CV 2011-00701 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN GULF INSURANCE LIMITED AND Claimant NASEEM ALI AND TARIQ ALI Defendants Before The Hon. Madam Justice C. Gobin
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 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 informationBEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON
BEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY AT WELLINGTON [2014] NZACA 02 ACA 10/13 IN THE MATTER AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the Accident Compensation Act 1982 of an appeal pursuant to s.107
More informationClient Update August 2009
giv Highlights Introduction...1 Brief Facts...1 Holding On Appeal...3 Concluding Words...8 Termination Of Contract Under Common Law: Is It A Defence That The Party Seeking To Terminate Was Itself Guilty
More informationPOLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL 2004 A BILL. entitled "BERMUDA DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT 2010
3 September 2010 A BILL entitled "BERMUDA DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT 2010 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES PART I Preliminary 1 Short title and commencement 2 Interpretation 3 Meaning of insured deposit base and relevant
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 57/2016 [2016] NZSC 107. DAVID CHARLES BROWNE First Applicant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 57/2016 [2016] NZSC 107 BETWEEN DAVID CHARLES BROWNE First Applicant DAVID BROWNE CONTRACTORS LIMITED AND DAVID BROWNE MECHANICAL LIMITED Second Applicants AND DAVID
More informationORDER PO Appeal PA Peterborough Regional Health Centre. June 30, 2016
ORDER PO-3627 Appeal PA15-399 Peterborough Regional Health Centre June 30, 2016 Summary: The appellant, a journalist, sought records relating to the termination of the employment of several employees of
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 informationEmployee Share Trust Deed
Employee Share Trust Deed Summerset Group Holdings Limited (Company) Summerset LTI Trustee Limited (Trustee) CONTENTS 1 DEFINITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION 1 1.1 Definitions 1 1.2 Construction 4 2 NAME 4 3 OFFER
More informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr N Webber (Mr Webber) Teachers' Pension Scheme (TP) Department for Education (DfE) Complaint Summary Mr Webber previously complained about the recovery
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 informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondents Mr M The Fire Brigades Union Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme (the FBU Scheme) The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) Outcome 1. Mr M s complaint is upheld
More informationJUDGMENT. Baptiste (Appellant) v Investment Managers Limited (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)
Easter Term [2018] UKPC 13 Privy Council Appeal No 0042 of 2017 JUDGMENT Baptiste (Appellant) v Investment Managers Limited (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL KENNETH HARRIS. and SARAH GERALD
MONTSERRAT CIVIL APPEAL NO.3 OF 2003 BETWEEN: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL KENNETH HARRIS and SARAH GERALD Before: The Hon. Mr. Brian Alleyne, SC The Hon. Mr. Michael Gordon, QC The Hon Madam Suzie d Auvergne
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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2017] NZHC 420 JOHN PLIMSOLL GODFREY JUDGMENT OF NATION J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2016-409-001231 [2017] NZHC 420 UNDER Section 52 of the Trustee Act 1956 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND The Godfrey Family Trust JOHN PLIMSOLL GODFREY
More informationThird District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed February 21, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. No. 3D16-1881 Lower Tribunal No. 15-9465 Liork, LLC and
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 02/20/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
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 information-and- RESPONDENTS SUBMISSIONS PURSUANT TO THE TRIBUNAL S DECISION DATED 11 MAY 2016
CASE REFERENCE: BIR/00CN/LSC/2014/0011 BIR/00CN/LSC/2014/0026 IN THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL PROPERTY CHAMBER (RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY) BETWEEN: (1) THE KEW PHASE ONE RTM COMPANY LIMITED (2) THE KEW PHASE TWO
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 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 information- and THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S. David Southern QC and Denis Edwards, counsel, instructed by BDO LLP, for the
[2017] UKUT 211 (TCC) Appeal number: UT/2015/0051 VAT repayment of output tax accounted for but not properly due repayment falling into recipient s profit Shop Direct whether profit so derived within scope
More informationCOURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO ST. ELIZABETH HOME SOCIETY (HAMILTON, ONTARIO) - and -
Court of Appeal File No. Ontario Superior Court File No. 339/96 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN: COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO ST. ELIZABETH HOME SOCIETY (HAMILTON, ONTARIO) - and - Plaintiff (Respondent) THE CORPORATION
More information) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Petitioner Z Financial, LLC, appeals both the trial court s granting of equitable
FOURTH DIVISION April 30, 2009 No. 1-08-1445 In re THE APPLICATION OF THE COUNTY TREASURER AND Ex Officio COUNTY COLLECTOR OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS, FOR JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SALE AGAINST REAL ESTATE RETURNED
More informationInsurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer*
Insurer v. Insurer: The Bases of an Insurer s Right to Recover Payment From Another Insurer* By: Thomas F. Lucas McKenna, Storer, Rowe, White & Farrug Chicago A part of every insurer s loss evaluation
More informationCase 1:15-cv LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:15-cv-00236-LG-RHW Document 62 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF/ COUNTER-DEFENDANT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN BISSONDAYE SAMAROO AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 164 of 2008 BETWEEN BISSONDAYE SAMAROO Appellant AND 1. AZIZOOL MOHAMMED 2. KHALIED MOHAMMED ALSO CALLED KHALID MOHAMMED 3. FAZILA MOHAMMED 4.
More informationCase 3:12-cv SCW Document 23 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #525 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
Case 3:12-cv-00999-SCW Document 23 Filed 04/30/13 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #525 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS CITY OF MARION, ILL., Plaintiff, vs. U.S. SPECIALTY
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 informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA253/04
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA253/04 BETWEEN AND JEFFREY GEORGE LOPAS AND LORRAINE ELIZABETH MCHERRON Appellants THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Respondent Hearing: 16 November 2005 Court:
More information