IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC 562. IN THE MATTER OF the Insolvency Act 2006
|
|
- Scot Gibson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC 562 IN THE MATTER OF the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the bankruptcy of DAVID IAN HENDERSON HAVENLEIGH GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED AND FM CUSTODIANS LIMITED Judgment Creditors (Substituted Creditors) DAVID IAN HENDERSON Judgment Debtor Hearing: 23 March 2016 Appearances: D I Henderson (bankrupt) in Person as applicant C R Vinnell for Official Assignee T Cooley as Counsel to Assist the Court (appearance excused) Ruling: 23 March 2016 RULING (NO. 12) OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE on application to adduce further evidence [1] Mr Henderson filed an application entitled application seeking to adduce further evidence. The proposed evidence is for his public examination under s 165 Insolvency Act The body of the Notice of Application in fact contains two applications. Under Schedule A permission is sought to adduce evidence in the form of three documents. Schedule B seeks, in its terms, an order requiring the Assignee to produce documents - in other words to provide discovery. HAVENLEIGH GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED v HENDERSON [2016] NZHC 562 [23 March 2016]
2 The context of the application [2] Mr Henderson is a bankrupt. His public examination was required when the Official Assignee objected to his automatic discharge. [3] Mr Henderson has been publicly examined in 2015 but I have yet to declare the examination to be at an end. Following a number of earlier directions focused on concluding the evidence and hearing final submissions, I made the following ruling on 3 December 2015: 1 Mr Henderson received a final opportunity to file the transcripts of examinations under s 165 of the Act with the highlighting of any passages asserted by Mr Henderson to rebut conclusions of the Assignee in their report. [4] By a minute dated 18 December 2015 I also provided directions as to the closing stages of the public examination, namely: (a) I further adjourned the proceeding for the hearing of oral closing submissions to commence mid-year (three days reserved). (b) The Assignee s written submissions had previously been filed and served. (c) Mr Henderson s written submissions were to be filed and served by 22 January I made some provision also for any additional evidence from Mr Henderson in advance of his written submissions. Mr Henderson met the amended timetable in relation to the filing of his submissions. [5] Previously in 2015 I had, on a number of occasions, emphasised to Mr Henderson the Court s requirement that he adduce before the Assignee was required to present her written submissions any additional evidence which he wished the Court to take into account. To the extent he was introducing from time to time documents, such as the written statements of other persons, I had also emphasised to Mr Henderson the limited weight which might attach to such evidence if the 1 Havenleigh Global Services Limited v Henderson [2015]??.
3 particular persons were not called to give evidence and made available for crossexamination, particularly if information appearing in their written statements was inconsistent with other evidence such as contemporary documents which had been exhibited. Mr Henderson s application [6] Mr Henderson divided the subject matter of his application into two parts, Schedule A and Schedule B. I will deal with matters in the same order. Schedule A [7] Mr Henderson seeks permission to adduce three documents, being: (a) An dated 10 April 2013 written by Grant Slevin, a Senior Investigating Solicitor of the Insolvency and Trustee Service (of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) to Kevin Sullivan, the liquidator of Property Ventures Investments Limited (the most significant of companies associated with Mr Henderson prior to his bankruptcy) (PVL). (b) A reference dated 11 November 2015 provided by Sir Bob Parker to the District Court at Christchurch. (c) A reference dated 11 November 2015 provided by Garry Moore to the District Court at Christchurch. [8] The Assignee does not oppose Mr Henderson s adducing those three items in evidence. Order on Schedule A [9] I, accordingly, grant Mr Henderson permission to adduce the three documents which I hereby admitted respectively as exhibits W, X and Y.
4 [10] Issues relating to what may be taken from those documents and what weight is to be attached to any statements within them are for submission at the hearing. Schedule B [11] Mr Henderson s Schedule B contains four sets of items which Mr Henderson will seek to produce but in relation to which he first sought an order for discovery as he believes the documents to be in possession of the Assignee. Item 1 [12] By Item 1 Mr Henderson seeks: 1. Copies of all communications of any nature, including s, letters, memos, diary notes, meeting notes that relate to the s 149 approvals policy as articulated by Mr Slevin in the attached to this application. In particular any interoffice communications, including recollections of those communications between Mr Marshall, Mr Slevin and Ms Cox. [13] The Item 1 application hangs off Mr Slevin s 10 April which is one of the subjects of the Schedule A application. [14] Mr Slevin s was written to Mr Sullivan, the barrister acting for the liquidator of certain companies previously associated with Mr Henderson, in this particular context it appears that Mr Sullivan was dealing with the affairs of PVL in relation to proceedings involving another company previously associated with Mr Henderson, GP96 Limited. On 9 April 2013 Mr Sullivan had sent a request to Mr Slevin to clarify whether an application filed in the District Court at Christchurch by Mr Henderson on behalf of GP96 Limited was the subject of any concern to the Assignee. Mr Walker enquired whether Mr Henderson needed the approval of the Assignee or leave of the Court to file this new application. [15] In response to the enquiry as to whether Mr Henderson required the approval of the Assignee or the leave of the Court to represent GP96 Limited, Mr Slevin responded that he did not think Mr Slevin needed the Court s leave to represent a company in the District Court in the light of s 57(2) of the District Courts Act. Mr Slevin then continued:
5 Certainly he hasn t approval to be employed by the company but that doesn t prevent him from acting in a voluntary capacity. That leaves the question whether representing a company in Court as its agent would breach prohibition on taking part in the management or control of any business. Having regard to the purposes of the restriction and the regulation governing applications under s 149, the Assignee is of the view that consent is not required where the particular activity does not involve any financial control of the company and could not cause it to incur significant debts that might not be paid. Accordingly the Assignee does not regard his consent as necessary for this particular activity, in the circumstances. [16] By his application, Mr Henderson asserts that the documents relating to the policy as articulated by Mr Slevin constitute material which rebuts the Assignee s allegations. [17] The wording of Mr Henderson s application implicitly recognises the Ruling No. 2 which I have previously made in the course of this public examination. 2 [18] By that Ruling I rejected a submission of Mr Henderson that there should be, in the context of this public examination, some right of general discovery. In the Ruling I referred to the submissions of Mr M S R Palmer QC. Mr Palmer appeared for the Assignee, in opposition to Mr Henderson s application for the release of all s 165 transcripts and a number of other documents, both specific and general. Mr Palmer stated, in the course of his written submissions: The content of the examinations and documentation does not contradict the information that has been provided to the Court in the Assignee s Report. [19] In my judgment in Ruling No. 2 I referred to Mr Palmer s statement to the Court in broader terms than expressed in the written document. I observed: [100] Mr Palmer was able, in the course of his submissions, to proffer to the Court the Assignee s confirmation that she and her officials have withheld no information which would tend to rebut conclusions stated in her report. [20] Notwithstanding this background I find there to be insuperable difficulties in the way of Mr Henderson s Item 1 application. 2 Havenleigh Global Services Limited v Henderson Ruling No. 2 [2015] NZHC 1762
6 [21] First, the Slevin was not a communication to Mr Henderson and, therefore, has no relevance in terms of influencing Mr Henderson in the actions he took during his bankruptcy. [22] Second, the Slevin , while used as a basis of a broader document request in relation to the Assignee s s 149 approvals policy, is not an concerned with stating a general policy or, indeed, stating a general approach in relation to Mr Henderson s bankruptcy as a whole. Mr Walker s enquiry was specifically in relation to Mr Henderson s right to file GP96 Limited s application in the District Court. Mr Slevin responded to the by referring to the right of representation in the District Court. His answer as to the Assignee s view of Mr Henderson s role in the proceeding for GP96 Limited concludes, by the reference to Mr Henderson s involvement in GP96 Limited for this particular activity, in the circumstances. To the extent that the middle passage, which I have quoted from the Slevin , refers to financial control and the incurring of debt, it is clearly a comment focused on the specific enquiry as to the conduct of proceedings and not more generally or comprehensively on consent requirements. [23] Thirdly, as Mr Vinnell submitted, it is for this Court to determine whether Mr Henderson breached the provisions of the Act. An opinion or view expressed by an officer of MBIE or indeed a policy document of the Assignee cannot affect the correct interpretation of s 149 of the Act. If an incorrect opinion were communicated to Mr Henderson (which is not the case with the Slevin , which was addressed to Mr Sullivan only) I might properly take that into account in my assessment of Mr Henderson s conduct as a bankrupt. But Mr Henderson has had the opportunity, because such matters as to what he was told are within his own knowledge, to give evidence of what he was told by various officials of MBIE, including Grant Slevin and Terry Marshall. He has done that. Those direct communications can be taken into account. [24] Finally, on the evidence of Grant Slevin, filed in opposition, Mr Henderson has had a copy of the Slevin since it was provided to Mr Henderson in a batch of documents on 23 January 2014 pursuant to a Privacy Act request. If Mr Henderson wished to pursue orders for further disclosure upon the basis of that
7 document the request ought to have been made much earlier and, in any event, before all evidence was called and I made directions for the filing of closing submissions. The delay, whilst not decisive but for other considerations I have touched on, is a significant factor. It counts against granting an application which would, by its nature, lead to a process of discovery and inspection, the possible adducing of further evidence, the testing of that evidence and consequential delay. [25] Nothing in the content of the Slevin or the circumstances relating to it warrants, in my judgment, an order that the Assignee produce further documents referred to in Mr Henderson s Item 1. Item 2 [26] Mr Henderson s Item 2 is similar to Item 1, and reads: Copies of any other material held by any Assignee that in any way relates to the s 149 policy articulated by Mr Slevin. [27] This application must fail for similar reasons to those identified in Item 1. Item 3 [28] The documents sought in Item 3 form a different category of documents. Item 3 reads: Copies of any Court decisions that relate to the unlawfulness of actions by the Assignee including traditional decisions regarding purported statutory forms provided to me by the Assignee to complete. [29] The request for the Item 3 documents involves a misapprehension on Mr Henderson s part as to what is evidence and what are properly matters for submission. [30] The parties have an obligation to disclose to the Court in their submissions any authorities of which they are aware and are relevant to the decisions which the Court must make on this public examination. Judicial decisions are, accordingly, matters for submission, not for evidence.
8 [31] As it is, I am informed by Mr Vinnell that on 22 January 2016 the Assignee provided Mr Henderson with a copy of the decision in Cameron v The Official Assignee, 3 in response to an Official Information Act request that Mr Henderson had made. [32] Mr Henderson, now holding a copy of Cameron, if he is of the view that it is relevant to the judgment I which have to give, will be entitled to make closing submissions relating to that or, indeed, any other relevant authorities. [33] No discovery order is justified in relation to such decisions. Item 4 [34] By Item 4 Mr Henderson seeks Copies of the transcripts of s 165 examinations relating to : (a) Mr Ferguson (b) Mr Leishman (c) Officers of the ANZ [bank] [35] Mr Henderson has not provided an evidential basis for a belief that transcripts of s 165 examinations for either Mr Leishman or other officers of the ANZ exist. Mr Vinnell has confirmed, as counsel for the Assignee, that no such transcripts exist (Mr Leishman and ANZ staff having been summoned for examination under the Act but not, in fact, examined). If Mr Henderson is not prepared to accept that indication he is free, of course, to contact Mr Leishman and make his own enquiry. [36] Mr Vinnell, for the Assignee, noted that Mr Henderson s application did not identify, in relation to Mr Ferguson, whether the transcript sought was that of Mr Ferguson, being Gregor Ferguson, or Mr Ferguson, being Alistair Ferguson. The transcript of Gregor Ferguson has already been filed in relation to public examination. Mr Henderson confirmed in his submissions that that was not this 3 Cameron v The Official Assignee [2014] NZHC 2820.
9 transcript sought. He explained that item 4(a) in fact relates to Alistair Ferguson whose transcript he already possesses. If Mr Henderson wishes, pursuant to the directions which I previously made in relation to the tendering of marked up transcripts, to produce Mr Alistair Ferguson s transcript that should be done under cover of a memorandum promptly. [37] In the circumstances I find no basis to make orders as sought in Item 4. Order on Schedule B [38] I, accordingly, dismiss the application in relation to all items identified in Schedule B of the application. Matters not the subject of an interlocutory application [39] I dealt with the matters which were the two subject matters of the application. I will deal only briefly with a further matter raised in Mr Henderson s submissions. It was not the subject of an interlocutory application on notice and I will not be reaching any conclusions or decision in relation to it. I will only briefly describe it. [40] Mr Henderson entitled his synopsis, which he filed, as a synopsis regarding Evidential Status of Assignee s Information Contained in her Report. Mr Henderson s submissions then proceeded in part to develop a proposition that the Assignee s report and documents provided to the Court should be accorded no evidential weight. That would obviously be a matter influencing what matters could be discussed in closing submissions. [41] Mr Henderson then went further, however, and submitted that the Court should bring the public examination to an end now and make an order discharging him from bankruptcy. [42] An application of such fundamental significance should not be entertained on the basis of an informal request such as occurred here through the inclusion in submissions on an interlocutory application regarding other matters. Furthermore, I am not satisfied that the type of orders sought, even if pursued formally on an
10 application, should be dealt with on an interlocutory application given the stage this proceeding has reached. As the point the Court perceived that the evidence had been given, directions were made for the filing of closing submissions on the basis that the parties should be able to make their submissions on the basis of that evidence. I have received detailed and, indeed, comprehensive synopses of submissions from both parties and it is those submissions which should now be taken into account in any decision of the Court in relation to the disposition of Mr Henderson s bankruptcy. Beyond these observations it is inappropriate for me to comment further on Mr Henderson s informal request. Costs [43] Having delivered the above judgment, I offered to hear from Mr Vinnell and Mr Henderson as to costs. Before doing so I indicated that in my preliminary view it is appropriate that Mr Henderson pay costs on a 2B basis together with disbursements. That would follow the usual principle that costs follow the event. An interlocutory application was not required in relation to Schedule A matters. Permission to adduce those Schedule A documents was not opposed by the Assignee. Mr Henderson has been free to adduce the two references at any point of his public examination after they came into existence. The granting of the (un-opposed) request to now adduce the Slevin is in the nature of an indulgence granted to Mr Henderson, having regard to the period in which he had been in possession of that document. [44] On the Schedule B items, Mr Henderson s application has been wholly unsuccessful and the usual principle would be that costs follow the event. [45] Mr Vinnell adopted the position that there should be an order in terms of my preliminary view. Mr Henderson, as a bankrupt in person, has understandably indicated that he was not in a position immediately, at the end of my oral judgment, to deal with the costs issue. [46] I reserve costs. Mr Vinnell has indicated he does not wish to file further submissions in the light of my preliminary indication. I direct that Mr Henderson file and serve his written submissions within 10 working days, limited to four pages.
11 I direct that if Mr Vinnell wishes to make any reply the reply is to be filed and served within two working days thereafter. I will then deal with costs on the papers. Associate Judge Osborne Solicitors: Anthony Harper, Christchurch Brookfields, Auckland Copy to Mr D I Henderson, Christchurch
IN 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 informationCONCERNING CONCERNING BETWEEN. DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.
LCRO 279/2014 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 VJ Applicant
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 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 informationof the Court s inherent jurisdiction
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE IN THE MATTER IN THE MATTER of the Court s inherent jurisdiction CIV-2018-404-723 [2018] NZHC 754 of an
More informationHEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Jawad Raza Heard on: Thursday 7 and Friday 8 June 2018 Location: ACCA Head Offices,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY CIV-2016-485-428 [2016] NZHC 3204 IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the Bankruptcy of Anthony Harry De Vries
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC UNDER the Companies Act 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2013-404-003305 [2016] NZHC 2712 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF an application under sections 295 and 298 BETWEEN AND MARK HECTOR NORRIE
More informationIN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A Appellant
2018 Māori Appellate Court MB 123 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20170005519 UNDER Section 58 Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN An appeal by Charles Rudd
More informationNEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. Decision No. [2009] NZLCDT 9 LCDT 08/2009. IN THE MATTER of the Law Practitioners Act 1982
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No. [2009] NZLCDT 9 LCDT 08/2009 IN THE MATTER of the Law Practitioners Act 1982 BETWEEN CANTERBURY DISTRICT LAW SOCIETY AND DAVID ALAN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2010-409-000559 [2016] NZHC 2969 IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of the bankruptcy of DAVID IAN HENDERSON
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV UNDER the Companies Act BLOSSOM WOOL LIMITED Applicant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2008-404-000161 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 BETWEEN AND BLOSSOM WOOL LIMITED Applicant JAMES WILLIAM PIPER Respondent AND UNDER the Companies Act
More informationBEFORE THE SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL AUTHORITY
[2018] NZSSAA 007 Reference No. SSA 001/17 SSA 002/17 IN THE MATTER of the Social Security Act 1964 AND IN THE MATTER of an appeal by XXXX and XXXX of Invercargill against a decision of a Benefits Review
More informationIN THE 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 informationMarley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd
Page 1 The West Indian Reports/Volume 46 /Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd - (1995) 46 WIR 233 Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd (1995) 46 WIR 233 JUDICIAL
More 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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 4 th April 2018 On 17 th April Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/18141/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 4 th April 2018 On 17 th April 2018 Before DEPUTY
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 : LORD JUSTICE DAVID RICHARDS And LORD JUSTICE IRWIN Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2017] EWCA Civ 111 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY HIS HONOUR JUDGE HODGE QC M14C358
More informationSOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No
SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No. 10922-2012 On 28 June 2013, Mr Moseley appealed against the Tribunal s decision on sanction. The appeal was dismissed
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 informationNovember 13, 2001, Decided
IN THE MATTER OF THE BANKRUPTCY OF GERALD THOMAS REGAN OF SAINT JOHN IN THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK Regan (Re) File No. NB 8564 New Brunswick Court of Queen s Bench (Trial Division) 2001 A.C.W.S.J. LEXIS
More informationBETWEEN DECISION. The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.
LCRO 71/2016 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN ZB Applicant
More informationIN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A IN THE MATTER OF Papatupu 2A No 2
363 Aotea MB 257 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20160003019 UNDER Section 18(1)(a) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Papatupu 2A No 2 MAUREEN FLUTEY Applicant Hearings:
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 informationBefore : MR JUSTICE FANCOURT Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2018] EWHC 48 (Ch) Case No: CH-2017-000105 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES CHANCERY APPEALS (ChD) ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2013] NZHC GIBBSTON WATER SERVICES LTD First Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2012-409-002834 [2013] NZHC 2933 UNDER Section 284 of the Companies Act 1993 IN THE MATTER of BETWEEN AND AND AND AND Gibbston Water Holdings
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14. LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND AND AND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14 challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority of an application
More informationIN THE 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC UNDER the Companies Act 1993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-002473 [2016] NZHC 2407 UNDER the Companies Act 1993 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND of an application for an order that a company, PRI Flight
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY 1. Mr Day a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 13 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under The Australian
More 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 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 informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL 1. Mr McDowell a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY. Between ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICER. and
IAC-AH-SAR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 th October 2015 On 6 th November 2015 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: HBU Properties Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] QCA 95 HBU PROPERTIES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SHANE MUNDEY FAMILY
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/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 informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2018] NZEmpC 51 EMPC 328/2017. IBRAHIM KOCATÜRK First Applicant. GÜLER KOCATÜRK Second Applicant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND [2018] NZEmpC 51 EMPC 328/2017 an application for leave to extend time to file a challenge IBRAHIM KOCATÜRK First Applicant GÜLER KOCATÜRK
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 168 EMPC 338/2016. PREET PVT LIMITED First Respondent
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND AND [2016] NZEmpC 168 EMPC 338/2016 an application for freezing orders JEANIE MAY BORSBOOM (LABOUR INSPECTOR), MINISTRY OF BUSINESS,
More informationPROCEDURE Costs of interlocutory proceedings Application for Further and Better Particulars. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS
[2017] UKFTT 0509 (TC) TC05962 Appeal numbers: TC/2014/05870 TC/2015/00425 PROCEDURE Costs of interlocutory proceedings Application for Further and Better Particulars FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER AWARD
More informationJUDGMENT. Cotter (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Appellant)
Michaelmas Term [2013] UKSC 69 On appeal from: [2012] EWCA Civ 81 JUDGMENT Cotter (Respondent) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (Appellant) before Lord Neuberger, President Lord Sumption
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE
More 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 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 informationQuality and value audit report. Madeleine Flannagan
Quality and value audit report Madeleine Flannagan February 2017 Table of Contents SECTION 1 Identifying information 3 1.1 Provider details 3 1.2 File summary 3 SECTION 2 Statutory authority 4 2.1 Authorisation
More informationFEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Young, Jr, in the matter of Buccaneer Energy Limited v Buccaneer Energy Limited [2014] FCA 711 Citation: Parties: Young, Jr, in the matter of Buccaneer Energy Limited v Buccaneer
More informationFIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL ASYLUM SUPPORT
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL ASYLUM SUPPORT Address: 2 nd Floor Anchorage House 2 Clove Crescent London E14 2BE Telephone: 020 7538 6171 Fax: 0126 434 7902 Appeal Number AS/14/11/32141 UKVI Ref. Appellant s Ref.
More informationSTATEMENT OF INSOLVENCY PRACTICE 9 (E&W)
STATEMENT OF INSOLVENCY PRACTICE 9 (E&W) REMUNERATION OF INSOLVENCY OFFICE HOLDERS ENGLAND AND WALES 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. This Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP) is one of a series issued to licensed
More informationINSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION. CERTIFICATE OF PROFICIENCY IN PERSONAL INSOLVENCY English Version Examination 15 June 2012
INSOLVENCY PRACTITIONERS ASSOCIATION CERTIFICATE OF PROFICIENCY IN PERSONAL INSOLVENCY English Version Examination 15 June 2012 PERSONAL INSOLVENCY (3 HOURS) Part A: Part B: Part C: All questions to be
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2013] NZHC 1628
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2013-404-688 [2013] NZHC 1628 UNDER BETWEEN AND AND Section 145A of the Land Transfer Act 1952 D S GRIFFITHS AND K JAFFE AS TRUSTEES OF THE ALLAN
More informationThe names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.
LCRO 261/2014 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Standards Committee BETWEEN OL Applicant AND MR
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 informationCase: Prewitt
Condition requiring the Debtor to stay current on his plan payments as contained in the Order Extending Automatic Stay as Against all Creditors is absolute with no grace period in making the plan payments
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 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 informationSTATEMENT OF INSOLVENCY PRACTICE 9 (NORTHERN IRELAND) REMUNERATION OF INSOLVENCY OFFICEHOLDERS
STATEMENT OF INSOLVENCY PRACTICE 9 (NORTHERN IRELAND) REMUNERATION OF INSOLVENCY OFFICEHOLDERS S 9A STATEMENT OF INSOLVENCY PRACTICE REMUNERATION OF INSOLVENCY OFFICEHOLDERS NORTHERN IRELAND Contents Paragraphs
More informationInformation & Instructions: Response to a Motion To Lift The Automatic Stay Notice and Proof of Service
Defense Or Response To A Motion To Lift The Automatic Stay Information & Instructions: Response to a Motion To Lift The Automatic Stay Notice and Proof of Service 1. Use this form to file a response to
More informationBEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL
BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2016] NZREADT 78 READT 042/16 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND An application to review a decision of the Registrar pursuant to section 112 of the Real
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 informationPENSION SCHEMES ACT 1993, PART X DETERMINATION BY THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN. Home Retail Group Pension Scheme
PENSION SCHEMES ACT 1993, PART X DETERMINATION BY THE PENSIONS OMBUDSMAN Applicant Scheme Respondent(s) Mr Philip Moulton Home Retail Group Pension Scheme Argos Limited, Home Retail Group Pension Scheme
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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On : 11 November 2014 On : 12 November Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE. Between SHAPLA BEGUM CHOWDHURY.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at : Field House Determination Promulgated On : 11 November 2014 On : 12 November 2014 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KEBEDE Between
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and. Appearances For the Claimant: Ms. A. Cadie-Bruney For the Defendant: Mr. K. Monplaisir QC and Ms. M.
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUIT NO.: 595 of 2001 BETWEEN NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION Claimant and ROCHAMEL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED GARVIN FRENCH GARRY LILYWHITE Defendants Appearances For
More informationHEARING at Specialist Courts and Tribunals Centre, Chorus House, Auckland
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2015] NZLCDT 29 LCDT 002/15 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE 4 Applicant AND ANTHONY BERNARD JOSEPH MORAHAN Respondent CHAIR Judge BJ Kendall
More informationSTATEMENT OF INSOLVENCY PRACTICE 9 (E&W)
STATEMENT OF INSOLVENCY PRACTICE 9 (E&W) REMUNERATION OF INSOLVENCY OFFICE HOLDERS ENGLAND AND WALES 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Statement of Insolvency Practice (SIP) is one of a series issued to licensed
More informationGreyhound Industry (Control Committee and Control Appeal Committee) Regulations 2007 & 2008 Consolidated
S.I. No. of 2007 Greyhound Industry (Control Committee and Control Appeal Committee) Regulations 2007 & 2008 Consolidated Arrangement of Articles Article 1. Definitions. 2. Citation and Commencement. 3.
More informationChristiaan Hendrik Muller. Sharon Gail Yerman DECISION
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2015] NZIACDT 77 Reference No: IACDT 045/14 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
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 informationBEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. Decision No: [2013] NZIACDT 19. Reference No: IACDT 023/11
BEFORE THE IMMIGRATION ADVISERS COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL Decision No: [2013] NZIACDT 19 Reference No: IACDT 023/11 IN THE MATTER of a referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing
More informationSIO Supervisor Application Form
SIO Supervisor Application Form Any personal information collected is for the purpose of assessing an application to be a Summary Instalment Order Supervisor under the Insolvency Act 2006. The information
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 6 July 2015 On 22 July 2015 Prepared on 7 July Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JM HOLMES.
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at North Shields Determination Promulgated On 6 July 2015 On 22 July 2015 Prepared on 7 July 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2009-404-002026 BETWEEN AND GREYS AVENUE INVESTMENTS LIMITED Plaintiff HARBOUR CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 9 June 2009 Appearances: R
More informationIn the Matter of The Chartered Professional Engineers Act Appeal 07/14
In the Matter of The Chartered Professional Engineers Act 2002 Appeal 07/14 And in the matter of an appeal to the Chartered Professional Engineers Council Between P Appellant And A Respondent Decision
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RINTOUL. Between. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/06984/2012 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Date Sent On 11 June 2013 On 5 July 2013 Prepared 13 June 2013 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 informationDate of Decision: 31 October 2014 DECISION
ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY NEW ZEALAND [2014] NZACA 18 ACA 9/14 (formerly ACA 9/13) Gary Richard Baigent Applicant ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Before: D J Plunkett Counsel
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 informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CRAIG. Between MR ABDUL KADIR SAID. and. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/00950/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Oral determination given immediately following the hearing
More informationJoti Jain for Respondent DETERMINATION OF THE AUTHORITY
IN THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS AUTHORITY AUCKLAND [2015] NZERA Auckland 318 5560398 BETWEEN AND GURINDERJIT SINGH Applicant NZ TRADINGS LIMITED TRADING AS MASALA BROWNS BAY Respondent Member of Authority:
More informationSUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY Citation: Kocken Energy Systems Inc. (Re), 2017 NSSC 80
SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA IN BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY Citation: Kocken Energy Systems Inc. (Re), 2017 NSSC 80 Date: 20170110 Docket: Hfx. No. 458774 Bankruptcy No. 40675 Estate No. 51-2097016 Registry:
More informationAIFC INSOLVENCY RULES (IR)
Annex 3 to the Minutes of the meeting of the Legal Advisory Council of the Astana International Financial Centre ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information- and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS. Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London on 11 November 2016
[2016] UKFTT 772 (TC) TC05499 Appeal number: TC/2012/08116 PROCEDURE Appeal against discovery assessment - Case management directions for progress of appeal Whether appellant or respondents should open
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV [2015] NZHC NORRIS WARD MCKINNON Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY CIV-2009-019-1473 [2015] NZHC 1025 BETWEEN AND NORRIS WARD MCKINNON Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant ANTHONY PRATT KAYE AND MORVA KAYE Defendants/Counterclaim
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 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 informationMH (pending family proceedings-discretionary leave) Morocco [2010] UKUT 439 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE JARVIS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) MH (pending family proceedings-discretionary leave) Morocco [2010] UKUT 439 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 20 September 2010 Determination
More information[2011] NZLCDT 41 LCDT 006/011 and 007/011. the Law Practitioners Act 1982 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
BEFORE THE NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2011] NZLCDT 41 LCDT 006/011 and 007/011 UNDER the Law Practitioners Act 1982 and the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 IN THE MATTER
More informationSection 238, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act Pipituangi A
7 Tairawhiti MB 39 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAIRA WHITI DISTRICT UNDER IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND A20080009969 Section 238, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 Pipituangi A THOMAS JOHN BROWNLIE
More informationSTATEMENT OF INSOLVENCY PRACTICE 9A (NI) REMUNERATION OF INSOLVENCY OFFICE HOLDERS NORTHERN IRELAND
STATEMENT OF INSOLVENCY PRACTICE 9A (NI) REMUNERATION OF INSOLVENCY OFFICE HOLDERS NORTHERN IRELAND Contents Paragraphs Introduction... 1-8 Statutory provisions... 9 Administration... 10-16 Insolvent Liquidations
More informationPotential Construction Defect Claim Site: 100 Eton Road, Lindfield "Dunstan Grove"
3 April 2017 Partner: David Andrews Direct Line: 9233 9023 Direct Facsimile: 9233 9123 Email: dandrews@makdap.com.au Our Ref: DA: BEL: 170658 BY EMAIL: raymond.reg@stratplus.com.au The Secretary The Owners
More information4/2/ Current Section(s) Summary New Section. Article 9A Supervisory Liquidation; Voluntary Dissolution and Liquidation.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE NORTH CAROLINA BANKING LAWS CHAPTER 53 OF THE GENERAL STATUTES ARTICLE 9A ADDRESSES SUPERVISORY LIQUIDATION; VOLUNTARY DISSOLUTION AND LIQUIDATION Current (s) New No corresponding
More informationCONCERNING CONCERNING BETWEEN. DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.
LCRO 30/2015 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING BETWEEN a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] GN Applicant
More informationROHINEET SHARMA of Auckland, Lawyer
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2015] NZLCDT 12 LCDT 030/14 IN THE MATTER of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN AUCKLAND STANDARDS COMMITTEE No. 2 Applicant AND ROHINEET
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 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) PA/03023/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/03023/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Court Justice Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 3 rd July 2017 On 5 th July 2017 Before
More informationDISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS. ACCA s Offices, 29 Lincoln s Inn Fields, London, WC2A 3EE
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr David Peter Lowe Heard on: 21 August 2015 Location: ACCA s Offices, 29 Lincoln s Inn
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 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 informationCase No. SCSL T THE PROSECUTOR OF THE SPECIAL COURT V. CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR FRIDAY, 27 FEBRUARY A.M. TRIAL TRIAL CHAMBER II
Case No. SCSL-00-0-T THE PROSECUTOR OF THE SPECIAL COURT V. CHARLES GHANKAY TAYLOR FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 00.0 A.M. TRIAL TRIAL CHAMBER II Before the Judges: Justice Richard Lussick, Presiding Justice Teresa
More information