Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 73 NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union v SCA Hygiene Australasia Ltd [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...the clear Parliamentary intention that employees should be paid the relevant daily pay for the public holidays falling during the closedown. She submitted that this was clear even under the 1981 Act as a result of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ports of Auckland Ltd v NZ Waterfront Workers Union Inc1 and since that time the legislation has become more precise as to what is to be included in the relevant daily pay. She submitted that the basic principle that public holidays...

2. [2008] NZEmpC AC 37/08 Orakei Group (2007) Ltd (formerly Axiom Rolle PRP Valuations Services Ltd) v Kapadia & Ors [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...interlocutory application was determinative of the case. In the circumstances, the fees and disbursements incurred were reasonable. [36] There is no dispute about the applicable principles that can be extracted from a trio of judgments of the Court of Appeal, Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd1, Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee2, and Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly3 [2004] 1 ERNZ 172. [37] First, the Court must determine what costs were reasonably incurred by a party entitled...

3. Slade - Parengarenga 3G (2014) 87 Taitokerau MB 46 (87 TTK 46) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...August 2014 and the three remaining trustees. In 2009 Karaka Wiki challenged the appointment of trustees and applied to the Court for a rehearing. On 19 November 2009 I granted the rehearing. Stephen Henare, one of the four former trustees, appealed that decision. On 9 January 2012 the Māori Appellate Court granted his appeal. [17] The effect of the Māori Appellate Court granting the appeal is that from mid-2012 (when the stay of the order appointing the seven trustees was d...

4. Pohatu v Muriwhenua Incorporation - Te Hapua 42 (2014) 91 Taitokerau MB 251 (91 TTK 251) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...lead to a conclusion that flouts business common sense, it must be made to yield to business common sense.’ [24] This statement of law has been recognised as the established legal position in New Zealand since the 1999 decision of the Court of Appeal in Boat Park Ltd v Hutchinson. 3 More recently the Court of Appeal has discussed these principles on two occasions. In WEL Energy Group Ltd v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Ltd the Court of Appeal stated that: 4 In inter...

5. MacFarlane v Hurihanganui - Whakarewarewa 2B (2015) 133 Waiariki MB 290 (133 WAR 290) [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...underlined by s 222(2)(b) which forbids the Court from appointing a trustee unless the Court is satisfied that the appointment of that person would be broadly acceptable to the beneficiaries. [25] On the discretion to appoint trustees, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that ordinarily substantial weight would be given to the views of the owners: 10 [52] It may be putting the matter too highly to say that the Court should only depart from the views of the owners in rare circumsta...

6. Hart - Okaha Section 5 block VIII Gore SD (2012) 12 Te Waipounamu MB 286 (12 TWP 286) [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...that the Trusts might benefit from having people outside the family appointed as trustees, but does not elaborate on who those people might be. Legal Principle [23] The Proprietors of Mangakino Township v The Māori Land Court 14 the Court of Appeal confirmed that this Court has extensive supervisory powers in relation to trusts. Blanchard J noted at pp 9-10 that the Māori Land Court: “…is expressly given in s237 in respect of any trust to which Part XII applies ‘all the...

7. Puriri – Okaihau No3C No2 (2013) 28 Takitimu MB 129 (28 TKT 129) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...would likely expect a written report from any supplier of services. 28 Tākitimu MB 135 Can Mr Puriri enter into a further lease with Emmerson? [27] The issue of the powers of responsible trustees was recently considered by the Court of Appeal in Naera v Fenwick where, in the context of clause 3 of the standard wide powers trust order, that Court stated: 6 [33] We are satisfied that the interpretation given by the Appellate Court is correct and for the reasons given. Such...

8. [2013] NZEmpC 191 Ohms v Vice-Chancellor Auckland University of Technology [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...refused an application for removal holding that the case did not involve an important question of law because the legal position in relation to the issue raised had been previously considered and determined by the courts, in particular the Court of Appeal. That decision was followed recently by Judge Perkins in Hall v Westpac New Zealand Ltd. 7 The interplay between an employer directing an employee away from the workplace pending receipt of its own medical advice and an employee...

9. Body Corporate 180379 v Auckland Council [2013] NZWHT Auckland 6 [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...one of the units was statute barred because an assignment of the 2002 Act claim had been ineffective and the assignees (now owners) had not made a new claim prior to the expiry of the limitation period. The Body Corporate and affected unit owner appealed. On 30 March 2012, Fogarty J granted the appeal and set aside our determination.1 [16] In his judgment, Fogarty J observed that there was no evidence that the 2002 Act claims had ever been withdrawn. His Honour noted that t...

10. LCRO 126/2013 MZ v JK [pdf, 128 KB]

    ...scope of review [28] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:5 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for tha...