Search Results

1. [2025] NZEmpC 76 Vegepod NZ Ltd v Lowe [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...NZEmpC 59, [2021] ERNZ 153 at [6]-[9], citing NZ Tax Refunds Ltd v Brooks Homes Ltd [2013] NZCA 90, (2013) 13 TCLR 531 at [12]- [13]. 4 See McKean v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2011] NZEmpC 128, [2011] ERNZ 312 at [4]. [12] As the Court of Appeal made clear in NZ Tax Refunds Ltd v Brooks Homes Ltd, a serious question to be tried is one that is not vexatious and frivolous.5 Once that (relatively low) threshold is overcome, the merits of the case (insofar as they can be ascertai...

2. ENV-2016-AKL-000185 Viaduct Harbour Holdings Limited v Auckland Council (scope) [pdf, 9.1 MB]

   Notice of appeal to Environment Court against decision on proposed Auckland combined plan Dated: 16 September 2016 Before the Environment Court In the matter of: Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) - Appeal against decision on proposed Auckland combined plan – s 156(1) of the LGATPA – Topic 050 City Centre – Viaduct Harbour Precinct - rezoning Lighter Quay as Sub-Precinct...

3. Pinnock & Ors as Trustees of the Pinnock Trust v Auckland City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 28 [pdf, 373 KB]

   ...claim that was filed with the Department of Building and Housing in August 2008 was based on the same cause of action that accrued in 2001, that is economic loss as a result of leaks. He further relied on Pullar v The Queen2 where the Court of Appeal concluded at paragraph 19: “It is not necessary, in order for time to start running, to be able to pin point with precision the exact cause of every defect. Indeed, that would frequently mean time will not start running until...

4. [2018] NZEnvC 237 View West Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 2 MB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 237 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act) of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act VIEW WEST LIMITED Appellant (ENV-2017-AKL-0001S1) AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J A Smith Environment Commissioner ACE Leijnen Environment Commissioner W R Howie K G Stevenson (Special Advisor) Hearing: at Auckland 26-30 November...

5. David Bain interim report of Hon Robert Fisher QC on compensation claim [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   Robert Fisher QC INTERIM REPORT FOR MINISTER OF JUSTICE ON COMPENSATION CLAIM BY DAVID BAIN 13 December 2012 Hon Robert Lloyd Fisher QC, LL.D, FAMINZ; Bankside Chambers, Level 22, Lumley Centre, 88 Short/and Street, Auckland 1140. New Zealand. PO Box 3107, Short/and Street, Auckland 1140, New Zealand. Phone: 64-9-307 8780 Fox: 64-9-377 0997 Emalf: rf@roberrfisher.co.nz. Website: www.robertfisher.co.nz , EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ••..• � .......... . " ............ "

6. [2010] NZEmpC 125 Behan-Kitto v New Zealand Post Limited [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...Rotorua People’s Advocacy Union. Ryan Blair says that he received three similar and associated Authority determinations at about the same time and, although he was instructed by Mr Behan- Kitto’s advocate, Paul Blair, to calculate the 28 day appeal period of two of those determinations, he calculated the period for this case incorrectly for reasons that he cannot now explain. [5] The intended defendant opposes the application for leave so it is necessary to consider the partie...

7. [2011] NZEmpC 25 George v Auckland Regional Council [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...subsequently discovered conduct in breaching her employment agreement, as a result of which the Council claims that it has suffered loss and damage. That subsequently discovered conduct can be so used has been authoritatively determined by the Court of Appeal in Salt v Richard Fell, Governor for Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and Oeno Islands. 3 [8] There may be issues touched upon in the affidavits and in opposition to the application as to the degree of the Council’s knowledge of...

8. [2010] NZEmpC 96 Neill v Schmidt & Paul & Anor [pdf, 25 KB]

   ...on a judgment of this Court in MacMillan v Hickey’s Pharmacy Limited2 but that is distinguishable on several grounds. It was a case involving an oral judgment of the Employment Tribunal under predecessor legislation and turned on the date for appeal purposes when a decision was given by the Tribunal. The legislation has changed significantly in relation to challenges from determinations of the Employment Relations Authority to this Court. [9] In view of my decision that Mr Schmi...

9. [2012] NZEmpC 184 Vine-Tech Contracting Ltd v Wattam & Inger [pdf, 72 KB]

   ...wages to Mr Wattam by $1,500 to take account of his earnings after dismissal, I awarded interest on lost earnings to both defendants. [3] The principles relating to costs awards in this Court are well established. They are based on the Court of Appeal judgments in Victoria University of 1 [2012] NZEmpC 22. Wellington v Alton-Lee 2 , Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd 3 and Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly. 4 The Court has a broad disc...

10. [2009] NZEmpC WC 27/09 Griffiths Drilling (NZ) Ltd v Jenner [pdf, 24 KB]

    ...which cannot be resolved in mediation includes a first instance, low level investigation and non-legalistic determination by the Employment Relations Authority. Although most parties accept the result or at least do not feel so aggrieved that they appeal, the legislation permits a right of challenge including by hearing de novo as the company has exercised in this case. This means that, in effect, the examination of the justification for dismissal begins anew in this Court with li...