IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05. ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent. William Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
|
|
- Donald Riley
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ U R Jagose and G A J Standish for Appellant T McGurk for Respondent Judgment: 3 October 2006 at 11 am JUDGMENT OF THE COURT A B The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority is reinstated. There is no order for costs. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND INCOME V ARBUTHNOT CA CA256/05 3 October 2006
2 REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by William Young P) Introduction [1] Between 1 June 1998 and 9 June 1999 the respondent, Mr Anthony Arbuthnot, was in receipt of two benefits paid to him by the Department of Work and Income New Zealand (WINZ), the community wage and the accommodation supplement. On 8 July 1998 Mr Arbuthnot moved into accommodation which he shared with a Ms Bell. He did not immediately notify WINZ of his change of address. Information as to his change in living arrangements came to the notice of WINZ on 24 February A delegate of the chief executive of WINZ later concluded that Mr Arbuthnot had not been entitled to either benefit and had thus been overpaid a total of $9, A debt in this sum was accordingly established. [2] Mr Arbuthnot sought a review by a benefits review committee which concluded that Mr Arbuthnot had not been living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage with Ms Bell but that he had failed to notify a change of address as required. The upshot was that the benefits review committee: (a) Revoked the delegate s decision in relation to the community wage; but (b) Upheld the decision as to the accommodation supplement in relation to the period between 8 July 1998 (when Mr Arbuthnot changed address) and 24 February 1999 (when WINZ received information about the change of address). [3] Mr Arbuthnot then appealed to the Social Security Appeal Authority. The chief executive sought to relitigate the decision as to the community wage and to defend before the Appeal Authority the decision on the accommodation supplement on the basis that, at the relevant time, Mr Arbuthnot was living in a relationship in
3 the nature of marriage with Ms Bell. The chief executive s entitlement to do so was challenged by Mr Arbuthnot. [4] In an interim decision, the Appeal Authority concluded that the chief executive could not challenge the community wage decision (a conclusion now accepted by the chief executive) but could nonetheless, on the hearing of Mr Arbuthnot s appeal, defend the decision of the benefits review committee as to the overpayment of the accommodation supplement on the basis of Mr Arbuthnot s alleged conjugal status. On Mr Arbuthnot s further appeal to the High Court, Goddard J held to the contrary. [5] The chief executive now appeals to this Court with leave. The legislative scheme [6] It is common ground that a beneficiary s conjugal status is relevant to eligibility for both community wage and accommodation supplement. For these purposes, s 63(b) of the Social Security Act 1964 permits the chief executive to regard: as husband and wife any man and woman who, not being legally married or in a civil union, have entered into a relationship in the nature of marriage. [7] The scheme of ss 10A and 12J of the Social Security Act is that specified decisions or determinations made directly by the chief executive are subject to an immediate right of appeal to the Appeal Authority whereas decisions or determinations made under delegation (as the relevant decisions in this case were) must first be the subject of review by a benefits review committee established under s 10A. In the latter case, there is a right of appeal against a decision or determination that has been confirmed or varied by a benefits review committee, see s 12J. [8] Section 10A(2)-(9) provides for the establishment of, and procedures to be adopted by, benefit review committees. They are established by the Minister and consist of one community representative and two officers of WINZ. It would not be
4 right to regard them as providing a purely internal review of disputed decisions but likewise they are certainly not fully independent tribunals either. [9] The chief executive has no right of appeal against a decision made by a benefits review committee. Presumably this is because such a right of appeal would be unnecessary given s 81 which provides: 81 Review of benefits (1) The chief executive may from time to time review any benefit in order to ascertain (a) (b) Whether the beneficiary remains entitled to receive it; or Whether the beneficiary may not be, or may not have been, entitled to receive that benefit or the rate of benefit that is or was payable to the beneficiary. (2) If, after reviewing a benefit under subsection (1) of this section, the chief executive is satisfied that the beneficiary is no longer or was not entitled to receive the benefit or is or was entitled to receive the benefit at a different rate, the chief executive may suspend, terminate, or vary the rate of the benefit from such date as the chief executive reasonably determines. The existence of an earlier decision by a benefits review committee does not exclude the chief executive s power of review under this section, although obviously the chief executive is not likely to go behind such a decision without good reason, for instance if more factual information becomes available. [10] Section 12M addresses the procedure to be followed by the Social Security Appeal Authority on appeal: 12M Hearing and determination of appeal (1) Subject to subsection (7) of section 12K of this Act, every appeal against a decision of the chief executive shall be by way of rehearing; but where any question of fact is involved in any appeal, the evidence taken before or received by the chief executive bearing on the subject shall, subject to any special order, be brought before the Authority as follows: (a) As to any evidence given orally, by the production of a copy of the notes of the chief executive or of such other material as the Authority thinks expedient:
5 (b) As to any evidence taken by affidavit and as to any exhibits, by the production of the affidavits and such of the exhibits as may have been forwarded to the Authority by the chief executive, and by the production by the parties to the appeal of such exhibits as are in their custody. (2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section, on any appeal against a decision or determination of the chief executive, the Authority may rehear the whole or any part of the evidence, and shall rehear the evidence of any witness if the Authority has reason to believe that any note of the evidence of that witness made by the chief executive is or may be incomplete in any material particular. (3) The Authority shall have full discretionary power to hear and receive evidence or further evidence on questions of fact, either by oral evidence or by affidavit. (4) The Authority shall also have regard to any report lodged by the chief executive under section 12K of this Act and to any matters referred to therein and to any evidence tendered thereon, whether or not such matters would be otherwise admissible in evidence. (5) In the exercise of its powers under this section the Authority may receive as evidence any statement, document, information, or matter which in the opinion of the Authority may assist it to deal with the matters before it, whether or not the same would be admissible in a Court of Law. (6) The Authority shall, within the scope of its jurisdiction, be deemed to be a Commission of Inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1908, and subject to the provisions of this Act, all the provisions of the Act, except sections 2, 10, 11, and 12, shall apply accordingly. (7) Subject to subsection (2) of section 12I of this Act, in the determination of any appeal the Authority may confirm, modify, or reverse the decision or determination appealed against. (8) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7) of this section, the Authority may refer to the chief executive for further consideration, the whole or any part of the matter to which an appeal relates, and where any matter is so referred the Authority shall advise the chief executive of its reasons for so doing and shall give such directions as it thinks just as to the rehearing or reconsideration or otherwise of the whole or any part of the matter that is so referred. The decision of the Appeal Authority [11] The key reasoning of the Appeal Authority appears in the following passage from its decision: [19] In our view the only issue to be determined by this appeal is the issue of the appellant s eligibility for Accommodation Supplement and
6 whether or not an overpayment should have been established against him in that regard. The period to be considered will be the full period covered by the Benefits Review Committee hearing. It is possible that the Chief Executive may wish to adduce evidence relating to the issue of whether or not the appellant was living in a relationship in the nature of marriage if that evidence is relevant to the appellant s eligibility for Accommodation Supplement. The Chief Executive will need to advise the appellant and the Authority no later than two weeks prior to the date of hearing if she intends calling such evidence. [20] We do not accept that the Authority is limited in its inquiry as to the appellant s eligibility for Accommodation Supplement to a consideration of the reasons given by the Chief Executive and the Benefits Review Committee for establishing an overpayment. As we have previously noted, appeals before the Authority are conducted by way of rehearing. The Authority conducts its own inquiries as to the merits of a particular case and does not simply review the findings of the Chief Executive or the Benefits Review Committee. We note moreover the comments of the High Court in Margison v The Chief Executive of the Department of Work and Income, High Court, AP 141-SW00 (Auckland Registry) 6 August 2001, Laurenson J, at paragraph 23: Given the inquisitorial nature of the function of the Commission of Inquiry, the express reference to the Authority having the same discretion as the Chief Executive in relation to the same matter, and the wide range of powers in relation to its determination, it seems to me that the Authority is not prevented from coming to a different conclusion regarding the original exercise of discretion and may indeed exercise that discretion differently. And at paragraph 27: On an appeal to an Authority I am satisfied that once the Authority is faced with an appeal it is empowered by the inquisitorial nature of its functions, its original power of decision and its full range of remedies, to seek out the issues raised by the appellant s case and determine these afresh and establish whether the appellant can provide the justification for doing so or not. The judgment of Goddard J [12] In the High Court, Goddard J reviewed the legislation and some authorities which had been cited to her. She then went on to say: [30] The effect of the Committee s interim decision on the s 63(b) issue was to revoke the Chief Executive s decision to establish an overpayment on the basis of that matter. The Chief Executive, having no right of appeal from that revocation, is bound by it. It must therefore be regarded as a final determination, whether or not a benefits review committee only has powers of internal review. To permit otherwise and allow the s 63(b) determination
7 to be revived on the back of Mr Arbuthnot s appeal would amount to an abuse of process. [31] It cannot be overlooked that if Mr Arbuthnot had not exercised his right of appeal from the Benefits Review Committee s decision, the Chief Executive could not now purport to seek a rehearing of the s 63(b) issue. Furthermore the decision to permit a rehearing on that issue carries the obvious potential for conflicting factual findings under s 63(b) in relation to two separate benefits. [32] If new information were to come to hand the Chief Executive could no doubt establish a new overpayment on the basis of that new information under s 81 of the Act and seek to recover the additional sum under s 86. In that event, Mr Arbuthnot would be entitled to another review by a benefits review committee and a fresh right of appeal. The Chief Executive cannot however seek to do this in the context of the present review and appeal process. Discussion An appeal by way of rehearing [13] The expression appeal by way of rehearing is applied to appeals from the District Court to the High Court under the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 and the District Courts Act 1947, and likewise appeals from the High Court to this Court under the Judicature Act As well, it appears in many other statutory contexts. What is envisaged was discussed by Somers J in Pratt v Wanganui Education Board [1977] 1 NZLR 476 at 490. A tribunal hearing such an appeal is required to consider for itself the issues which had to be determined at the original hearing. [14] It is important to recognise that Mr Arbuthnot s right of appeal is not against the decision of the benefits review committee but rather against the original decision made by the chief executive s delegate as varied by the benefits review committee (see s 12J) and that under s 12I, the Appeal Authority has all the powers, duties, functions and discretions of the chief executive in relation to the original decision. This suggests a rehearing in respect of the original decision made by the delegate rather than of the decision of the benefits review committee. [15] In any event, an appeal by way of rehearing is addressed to the substance of the decision appealed against - the end result and not steps in the reasoning. It is
8 that end result, which is the decision or determination, which is under appeal. To the extent that it is right to treat the appeal as being against the decision of the benefits review committee, the conclusion of the benefits review committee in favour of Mr Arbuthnot on his conjugal status was not in itself a decision (or a determination) rather the relevant decision was that he was not entitled to the accommodation supplement. And if ordinary appellate principles apply, the chief executive is entitled to defend that decision on grounds other than those relied on by the benefits review committee. Should the ordinary appellate approach be taken in this case? [16] Mr McGurk argued we should approach the review and appeal structure provided for by the Social Security Act not on the basis of normal appellate principles but rather by reference to the specialised nature of the jurisdiction involved. [17] We accept that there are logistical and resource implications for beneficiaries who become involved in disputes with WINZ. But when the legislature chose to use the well known phrase appeal by way of rehearing in respect of the jurisdiction of the Appeal Authority, we think it clear that the legislature used that expression in its normal meaning - a conclusion which is consistent with s 12I(1). Is the inconsistency between the chief executive s contentions as to conjugal status and the decision of the benefits review committee as to the community wage a critical consideration? [18] It would have been an odd result if the Appeal Authority concluded that Mr Arbuthnot s conjugal status disentitled him to the accommodation supplement but that he nonetheless retained his entitlement to the community wage on the basis of the benefits review committee s different approach to that status. [19] The arguments advanced by Mr McGurk around this consideration in substance came down to two interrelated propositions. First, that the decision of the benefits review committee created an estoppel. Secondly, that it was an abuse of
9 process for the chief executive to challenge the conjugal status determination on the accommodation supplement appeal when the chief executive had no right of appeal from the benefits review committee decision on the community wage in respect of which the same determination was relevant. [20] We accept that the chief executive does not have a right to appeal against decisions of the benefits review committee, but as indicated, this is because, on our appreciation, such a right of appeal is unnecessary. Of course we would expect the chief executive to act reasonably and in the ordinary course of events to respect decisions of a benefits review committee unless new material comes to light which warrants a different approach. But that view rests on principles of good administration rather than anything akin to an estoppel an estoppel which would not be in conformity with the scheme of the statute, particularly given the broad rights of review conferred on the chief executive under s 81. For the same reasons, we do not regard the chief executive s desire to rely on conjugal status considerations at the appeal as being an abuse of process. [21] So we accept that the odd result postulated in [18] is possible on our approach but we see it as a consequence of the legislative scheme and in any event subject to correction by the chief executive under s 81. We might add that if the chief executive were, prior to the hearing of the appeal before the Appeal Authority, to revisit the community wage entitlement (perhaps on the basis of new evidence), it would be odd if he or she could not relitigate the conjugal status issue at hearing of the appeal on the accommodation supplement. Mootness? [22] As long ago as December 2001 the chief executive disestablished the balance of the debt that arose from the overpayment of the accommodation supplement (which by then was approximately $2,000). This decision arguably rendered moot the appellant s then appeal to the High Court. The appeal to Goddard J was nonetheless prosecuted without objection by the chief executive.
10 [23] Likewise in this Court, Mr Arbuthnot has not sought to rely on mootness as a basis for resisting the chief executive s appeal. Although it is therefore unlikely in the extreme that the proposed appeal to the Appeal Authority will ever proceed, we have thought it right to determine the issue placed before us for consideration. Determination [24] The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the decision of the Social Security Appeal Authority is reinstated. There is no order for costs. Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington
IN 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 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 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 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 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 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 informationLAURA JANE GEORGE Applicant. AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent. Ellen France, Randerson and French JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA731/2013 [2014] NZCA 209 BETWEEN AND LAURA JANE GEORGE Applicant AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Hearing: 12 May 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France, Randerson
More informationTHE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Respondent. J K Scragg and P H Higbee for Appellant U R Jagose and D L Harris for Respondent
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA122/2013 [2013] NZCA 410 BETWEEN AND GARY BRIDGFORD AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF ELVA BRIDGFORD OF WHANGAREI Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY
More 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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 November 2017 On 01 December Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 November 2017 On 01 December 2017 Before THE HON. LORD MATTHEWS DEPUTY UPPER
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 informationMs K Brereton assisted by Mr G Howell for the appellant Mr G Moore for Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development DECISION
[2015] NZSSAA 105 Reference No. SSA 117/15 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX of No Fixed Abode against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee BEFORE
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/08153/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/08153/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 March 2018 On 11 May 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationREAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION
REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO BY-LAW NO. 10 OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO John Van Dyk Respondent This document also
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Dawson v Jewiss; Thompson v Jewiss [2004] QCA 374 PARTIES: STUART BEVAN DAWSON (plaintiff/respondent) v HENRY WILLIAM JEWISS also known as HARRY JEWISS (defendant/appellant)
More informationARBITRATION ACT 2005 REVISED 2011 REGIONAL RESOLUTION GLOBAL SOLUTION
ARBITRATION ACT 2005 REVISED 2011 REGIONAL RESOLUTION GLOBAL SOLUTION According to Section 3(1) of the Arbitration (Amendment) Act 2018 [Act A1563] and the Ministers appointment of the date of coming
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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 February 2016 On 14 March Before
IAC-FH-AR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 February 2016 On 14 March 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More 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 informationRK (OFM membership of household dependency) India [2010] UKUT 421 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) RK (OFM membership of household dependency) India [2010] UKUT 421 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 9 November 2010 Determination Promulgated
More informationDECISION ON THE PAPERS
[2016] NZSSAA 018 Reference No. SSA 073/15 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX and XXXX of New Plymouth against a decision of a Benefits Review Committee
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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 25 July 2014 On 11 August 2014 Oral determination given following hearing. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/30481/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 25 July 2014 On 11 August 2014 Oral determination given
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 information110th Session Judgment No. 2993
Organisation internationale du Travail Tribunal administratif International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal 110th Session Judgment No. 2993 THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, Considering the complaints
More informationIN THE MATTER of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, s. 268 (as amended) and Regulation 283/95 (as amended);
B E T W E E N : IN THE MATTER of the Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.i.8, s. 268 (as amended) and Regulation 283/95 (as amended); AND IN THE MATTER of the Arbitration Act,1991, S.O. 1991, c.17, (as amended);
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 informationRawofi (age assessment standard of proof) [2012] UKUT 00197(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between SAIFULLAH RAWOFI.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rawofi (age assessment standard of proof) [2012] UKUT 00197(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Before LORD JUSTICE McFARLANE UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR Between Given
More 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 informationCase Name: Graham v. Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect
Page 1 Case Name: Graham v. Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect Appearances: Between: Malvia Graham, applicant, and Coseco Insurance Co./HB Group/Direct Protect, insurer [2002] O.F.S.C.I.D. No.
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 informationRespondent. Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah Mandeno for the Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY A193/00 BETWEEN R LYON Appellant AND THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Date of hearin g : 14 November 2000 Counsel: Paul Heaslip for the Appellant Sarah
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/04305/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 16 June 2015 On 7 July 2015.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/04305/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 16 June 2015 On 7 July 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationC.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant. Winkelmann, Brewer and Toogood JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA637/2015 [2017] NZCA 3 BETWEEN AND C.J. PARKER CONSTRUCTION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellant WASIM SARWAR KETAN, FARKAH ROHI KETAN AND WASIM KETAN TRUSTEE COMPANY
More informationIN THE 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 informationBefore: VIVIEN ROSE (Chairman) - v - RULING ON DISCLOSURE
Neutral citation [2010] CAT 12 IN THE COMPETITION APPEAL TRIBUNAL Victoria House Bloomsbury Place London WC1A 2EB Case Number: 1121/1/1/09 28 April 2010 Before: VIVIEN ROSE (Chairman) Sitting as a Tribunal
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 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 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 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 informationOmbudsman s Determination
Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mr L NHS Pension Scheme (the Scheme) NHS Pensions (as a service provided by NHS Business Services Authority (NHS BSA) Complaint Summary Mr L has complained
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 informationVICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT Reference: D202/2004. Noreen Cosgriff.
VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT Reference: D202/2004 APPLICANT: FIRST RESPONDENT: SECOND RESPONDENT: WHERE HELD: BEFORE: HEARING TYPE: Noreen Cosgriff
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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 17 th March 2015 On 23 rd March 2015 Prepared on 17 th March Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT
IAC-FH-AR/V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/52919/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 17 th March 2015 On 23 rd March 2015
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CIV [2017] NZHC 367. IN THE MATTER the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CIV-2016-425-000117 [2017] NZHC 367 IN THE MATTER the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the bankruptcy of ABRAHAM NICOLAAS VAN
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 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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MACLEMAN. Between SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/01110/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Glasgow Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 th August 2015 On 1 st September 2015 Before UPPER
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SZJGA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 787 MIGRATION appeal from decision of Federal Magistrate discretion to adjourn hearing on application for judicial
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/02277/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 2 September 2014 On 19 th January 2015.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/02277/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 2 September 2014 On 19 th January 2015 Before Deputy
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 informationBasnet (validity of application - respondent) [2012] UKUT 00113(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Basnet (validity of application - respondent) [2012] UKUT 00113(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at George House, Edinburgh on 7 February 2012 Determination
More 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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS. Between. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 21 st April 2016 On 13 th July 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DEANS Between
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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KELLY. Between (1) MRS ROMUALOA AMAEFULE (2) MR NAPOLEON AHAMAEFULE AMAEFULE.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/09195/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Determination Promulgated On 29 th October 2014 On 6 th November 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationIncome from business as computed in the assessment order
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJ. AND V.D. TULZAPURKAR, J. CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 785 AND 783 OF 1977 APRIL 11, 1978 S.T.
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 informationCONCERNING CONCERNING BETWEEN. The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION
LCRO 132/2014 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [City] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN WK Applicant
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 th April 2018 On 14 th May Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/02223/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 th April 2018 On 14 th May 2018 Before DEPUTY
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 informationNETHERLANDS - ARBITRATION ACT DECEMBER 1986 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - BOOK IV: ARBITRATION TITLE ONE - ARBITRATION IN THE NETHERLANDS
NETHERLANDS - ARBITRATION ACT DECEMBER 1986 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE - BOOK IV: ARBITRATION TITLE ONE - ARBITRATION IN THE NETHERLANDS SECTION ONE - ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR Article
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Birmingham Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 th July 2016 On 26 th July Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/16164/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Birmingham Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 th July 2016 On 26 th July 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
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 IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KELLY. Between. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 th April 2017 On 17 th May 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KELLY Between
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 January 2018 On 31 January Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE LANE.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/34113/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 January 2018 On 31 January 2018 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA526/2010 [2010] NZCA 626. O'Regan P, Arnold and Harrison JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA526/2010 [2010] NZCA 626 BETWEEN AND TRUSTEES EXECUTORS LIMITED Appellant EDEN HOLDINGS 2010 LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 14 October 2010 Court: Counsel: O'Regan
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 informationArbitration CAS 2015/A/3970 K. v. Turkish Athletics Federation (TAF) & World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), award on jurisdiction of 17 November 2015
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration K. v. Turkish Athletics Federation (TAF) & World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), Panel: His Honour James Robert Reid QC (United Kingdom),
More informationIn The Supreme Court of Belize A.D., 2010
In The Supreme Court of Belize A.D., 2010 Civil Appeal No. 2 In the Matter of an Appeal pursuant to section 43 (1) of the Income and Business Tax Act, CAP 55 of the Laws of Belize 2000 In the Matter of
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI [2013] NZHC ANTHONY RAHIRI MARSH Appellant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CRI-2013-409-000048 [2013] NZHC 2234 BETWEEN AND ANTHONY RAHIRI MARSH Appellant NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent Hearing: 28 August 2013 Appearances:
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 informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Winkelmann, Peters and Collins JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA508/2015 [2016] NZCA 138 BETWEEN AND MRINAL SARDANA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 8 March 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Winkelmann, Peters and Collins
More informationREAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20003) ACTIVE REAL ESTATE LIMITED (TRADING AS HARCOURTS JOHNSONVILLE)
Decision No: [2014] NZREADT 40 Reference No: READT 043/13 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN an appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 ROBERT GARLICK Appellant AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20003)
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Decision and Reasons Promulgated On: 3 rd July 2015 On: 27 th August Before DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL FARRELLY
st Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/11481/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS At Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On: 3 rd July 2015 On: 27 th August 2015 Before DEPUTY
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 28 th January 2015 On 10 th March Before
IAC-PE-AW-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06203/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 28 th January 2015 On 10 th March 2015
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 informationAPPEAL FROM DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A
CT+ Kqqb SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1986 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT 1992 APPEAL FROM DECISION OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW DECISION OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER Name:
More 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 informationTrevor John Conquer. The name of the complainant and any information identifying him or his wife is not to be published.
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2015] NZIACDT 49 Reference No: IACDT 067/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 12 January 2016 On 27 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 January 2016 On 27 January 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More 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 informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) EA/07000/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 May 2017
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) EA/07000/2016 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 May 2017 On 6 June 2017 Determination given orally
More informationIN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A Appellant. MARGARET SAMSON AND MASSEY SAMSON Respondents
2018 Māori Appellate Court MB 469 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20180003812 UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Otarihau 2B1C
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before. UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CONWAY Between ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER, ISLAMABAD. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 15 January 2015 On 5 May 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CONWAY Between ENTRY CLEARANCE
More information969. Pursuant to Article 95 item 3 of the Constitution of Montenegro, I hereby adopt DECREE ON THE PROMULGATION OF THE LAW ON ARBITRATION
969. Pursuant to Article 95 item 3 of the Constitution of Montenegro, I hereby adopt DECREE ON THE PROMULGATION OF THE LAW ON ARBITRATION I hereby promulgate the Law on Arbitration adopted by the 25 th
More informationDECISION AND REASONS
IAC-FH-AR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/00094/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 15 February 2016 On 8 March 2016
More informationINTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES
INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR SETTLEMENT OF INVESTMENT DISPUTES ADEL A HAMADI AL TAMIMI V. SULTANATE OF OMAN (ICSID CASE NO. ARB/11/33) PROCEDURAL ORDER No. 5 RULINGS ON THE RESPONDENT S REQUESTS NOS. 3-11
More informationARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CV-15-293 UNIFIRST CORPORATION APPELLANT V. LUDWIG PROPERTIES, INC. D/B/A 71 EXPRESS TRAVEL PLAZA APPELLEE Opinion Delivered December 2, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 3 February 2016 On 24 February Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RAMSHAW. Between
IAC-AH-DN-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/30396/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 3 February 2016 On 24 February 2016
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE Case number: 176/2000 In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN RAISINS (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED JOHANNES PETRUS SLABBER 1 st Appellant 2 nd Appellant
More informationLakshmi Bhargavi Koppula. Na (Fiona) Zhou
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2015] NZIACDT 85 Reference No: IACDT 023/12 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 17 November 2006 On 26 February Before. Senior Immigration Judge Storey Dr T Okitikpi Miss V S Street
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal NB and JN (right of permanent residence) France [2007] UKAIT 00039 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 17 November 2006 On 26 February
More informationNAME REDACTED REVENUE COMMISSIONERS DETERMINATION
AC Ref: 17TACD2017 BETWEEN NAME REDACTED V REVENUE COMMISSIONERS Appellant Respondent DETERMINATION Introduction 1. This appeal concerns the entitlement to the employee tax credit pursuant to Taxes Consolidation
More informationSyed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SPENCER. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Syed (curtailment of leave notice) [2013] UKUT 00144 IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House on 18 th January 2013 Determination Promulgated Before
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE GRUBB. Between NM (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) And
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06052/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Newport Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 31 st March 2016 On 15 th April 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House, London Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 1 September 2015 On 9 September Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House, London Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 1 September 2015 On 9 September 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 30 October 2006 On 10 January Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE WARR. Between. and
Asylum and Immigration Tribunal SA (Work permit refusal not appealable) Ghana [2007] UKAIT 00006 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 30 October 2006 On 10 January 2007
More information