Search Results

1. [2006] NZEmpC CC 13/06 Angel & Anor v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...process. The key question was whether the actions of the plaintiffs were capable of constituting serious misconduct. The Authority held that the matter was one of negligence and relied on W & H Newspapers Limited v Oram1 where the Court of Appeal held that a single act of carelessness when sufficiently serious can impair trust and confidence. [6] Having found that the employees had breached the integrity of the product safety systems the Authority held that their actions wer...

2. LCRO 53/2021 ST on behalf of the Executors of the Estate of KK v QM, WP, RS and DJ of ABC Law Limited (9 March 2022) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...in Deliu v Connell where the Court said a review “involves the LCRO coming to his or her own view of the fairness of the substance and process of a Committee’s determination”.33 [37] [Law firm B] submit that this is confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Keene v Legal Complaints Review Officer where it was said that the primary obligation of the LCRO is to “exercise their own judgment about the appropriate determination to make in respect of a complaint, having regard to all relevan...

3. Munro-Anderson & Ors as Trustees of the Munro-Anderson Trust v Reed [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...the High Court that adjudicators did not have the power to make awards of general damages. This was in a judgment by Stevens J in Hartley v Balemi & Ors, Auckland High Court, CIV 2006-404-002589, 29 March 2007. This judgment considered an appeal against a WHRS adjudication Determination, in which the learned judge held that general damages claims for mental stress did not fit comfortably within the overall scheme of the WHRS legislation and its underlying policy consideration...

4. Wikitera v Anderson - Rangitoto Tuhua 70B No 1B (2015) 106 Waikato Maniapoto MB 201 (106 WMN 201) [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...Court to consider whether there is an arguable defence to a plaintiff’s claim, sufficient to resist an application for summary judgment, before ordering a stay of proceedings. [50] The Supreme Court considered the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in its consideration of the word “finds”. The Court of Appeal had found that “finds” indicates that Parliament contemplated a judicial inquiry, which would normally involve affidavit evidence and legal submissions as to the...

5. LCRO 15/2021 JBC Limited v KD (24 August 2021) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:12 12 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41]. 9 … 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 that...

6. Ngamoki-Cameron - The Proprietors of Mangaroa (2015) 119 Waiariki MB 225 (119 WAR 225) [pdf, 323 KB]

   ...decision would issue in due course concerning the validity of Mr Koopu’s resignation and the issues arising from that event. As foreshadowed, I issued my decision on Mr Koopu’s resignation on 12 March 2014. 3 That judgment was not subject to appeal or review. [7] On 2 May 2014 a further hearing was held and it was greed that a special general meeting of shareholders would be convened on 21 June 2014. 4 The meeting was to be overseen by an independent facilitator. 5 I then b...

7. AQ v ZF LCRO 243/2012 (26 March 2014) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to 4 the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Role of the LCRO [18] The Act contemplates the Review Officer...

8. [2011] NZEmpC 21 Maddern v Worldxchange Communications Ltd [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...the grievance to the attention of the employer, the obligation on an employer in receipt of such a grievance is to act in the way a fair and reasonable employer would do in all the circumstances. Judge Shaw, in a passage approved by the Court of Appeal in Waikato District Health Board v Clear, 2 put it this way: 3 2 [2010] NZCA 305 at [58]. 3 [2008] ERNZ 646 at [14]. The Court‟s role is to objectively review the circumstan...

9. MSC v Scholes [2013] NZIACDT 71 (25 November 2013) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...complaint, and then whether to take no further action or impose specific sanctions. Only the first step is complete prior to this present decision being issued. [26] This view is further supported by sections 81(1) of the Act, which set out the rights of appeal from a decision of the Tribunal. The relevant paragraphs are set out as follows: A person may appeal to a District Court against any of the following decisions: ... (c) A decision of the Tribunal to cancel or suspend the pers...

10. [2012] NZEmpC 79 Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie [pdf, 248 KB]

    ...of Police, 15 the Court accepted that there was a continuing cause of action in respect of actions taken by the employer against the plaintiff. This included actions which were four years apart. The Court commented, relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Minister of Education v Bailey, 16 that: “it 10 CC 23/07, 19 November 2007. 11 At [6]. 12 [2002] 1 ERNZ 720. 13 At [33]. 14 At [32]. 15 [2003] 1 ER...