-
Available Subscriptions
Dog Chat
534 topics in this forum
-
- 3 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 6 replies
- 2.5k views
-
- Guest
-
- 3 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 18 replies
- 4.7k views
-
- 17 replies
- 3.6k views
-
- 4 replies
- 1.6k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1k views
-
- 2 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 4 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 8 replies
- 2.5k views
-
- 1 reply
- 1.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 957 views
-
- 5 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 23 replies
- 3.8k views
-
- 0 replies
- 728 views
-
- 0 replies
- 974 views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 27 replies
- 5.8k views
-
- 14 replies
- 3.7k views
-
- 13 replies
- 3.5k views
-
- 15 replies
- 3.4k views
-
- 3 replies
- 1.3k views
-
- 5 replies
- 2.1k views
-
- 11 replies
- 2.6k views
Announcements
-
Posts
-
Yes, and yes. My read is your latter point is the crux of the case. -
By Chief Stipe · Posted
You mean an Order in Council. Essentially you are agreeing with my first point that there is possibly only one arguable point of law. However arguably there is nothing in the Act that stops NZTR from removing race dates nor is there anything in the Act that directs NZTR to give a specific number of race dates to anyone. So what will Avondale argue with? -
My take from it is the AJC want to test if NZTR have a right to remove their race dates, if the purpose is so that they can then try to get a Council Order to take over a community asset.
-
By Chief Stipe · Posted
Why? What do you "take from the article"? Or are we supposed to guess? Regardless if two years ago the AJC and NZTR signed a MOU to determine what would happen once racing ceased at Avondale isn't that an admission by Avondale that racing would cease? -
I doubt either would come into the thrust of the case based on what I take from that article, but that's all I know.
-
-
Topics
-
