Search Results

1. LCRO 168/2017 AH v OS and VI (21 December 2018) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...scope of review [48] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:2 … 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...

2. LCRO 124/2017 RG v XP (4 December 2018) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...scope of review [42] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:2 … 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...

3. LCRO 117/2022 VN v SC (16 May 2024) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...scope of review [57] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:1 … 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. 1 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41]. 12 The Review Officer has broad powers to cond...

4. Stirling - Opape No 1A No 1B [2020] Chief Judge's MB 526 (2020 CJ 526) [pdf, 323 KB]

   ...[25] The issues to determine in this case are: 2 [2020] Chief Judge’s MB 266-285 (2020 CJ 266-285) 3 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 4 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2020 Chief Judge’s MB 538 (a) Whether the Court made a mistake or whether there was an omission in the presentation of facts presented to the Court; and (b) If so, is it necessary in the interests of justice to remed...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 190 Brown v Adams t/a Untouchable Hair & Skin [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...must be an end to litigation. 10 [24] In Yong t/a Yong & Co Chartered Accountants v Chin, Judge Couch dismissed the four processes by which the substance and effect of a judgment can be changed after it has been given in the process of appeal, judicial review, recall and rehearing. 11 As to the last, he made the following observation with which I respectfully agree: 12 [23] … This is a step which no court will take lightly as it involves setting aside a judgment...

6. [2011] NZEmpC 161 Rush Security Services Limited v Coverdale [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...room. [32] In terms of the legal position, Ms Rush submitted that the decisions the plaintiff made were made honestly and that any adverse effect on employment was not foreseen. Ms Rush relied upon and cited various passages from the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Auckland City Council v New Zealand Public Service Association Inc. 11 In reliance on a statement made at [25] of the Auckland City Council judgment, Ms Rush submitted: The Plaintiff cannot be reasonably required...

7. [2007] NZEmpC AC 12/07 CE of Unitec Institute of Technology v Henderson [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...Auckland) Appearances: Emma Butcher, Counsel for Plaintiff Christopher Patterson, Counsel, and Colin Ross, Advocate for Defendant Judgment: 19 March 2007 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE GL COLGAN [1] The issues for decision in this challenge (appeal) by hearing de novo from a determination of the Employment Relations Authority are: • whether Kathleen Henderson’s summary dismissal from her position as a senior lecturer at Unitec Institute of Technology (“Unitec”) was...

8. Kettlewell & Anor as Trustees for the DS Day Trust v Crighton [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...staff on a labour only basis with some contractors for particular kinds of work”. The District Court Judge who dealt with the original claim found that the original owners were “in effect head contractors” and this was upheld by Temm J on appeal. Another example of an owner using labour only subcontractors being held to be the “head contractor”. [34] Counsel goes on to assert that the Crightons “did not get advice or employ an experienced tradesperson to supervise th...

9. [2006] NZEmpC WC 15/06 OCS Ltd v Food Workers Union Inc [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...to be enrolled and scanned for the Panztel, OCS should have sought resolution of the dispute before issuing the instructions. In Sky Network Television Ltd v Duncan2 in the context of a personal grievance for unjustified dismissal the Court of Appeal found that the legal position between the employer and the employee was not clear cut and the dispute “cried out for an attempt at resolution”. 1 Wellington Clerical Workers IUOW v Col...

10. Aitken v Laudermilk [pdf, 78 KB]

    ...made to Mt Albert Borough Council v Johnson [1979] 2 NZLR 234, 241 and Stieller v Porirua City Council [1986] 1 NZLR 84, for the proposition that the council is not an insurer or guarantor of building work. [85] In Stieller the Court of Appeal at p 94 said that the construction of houses with good materials in a workmanlike manner is a matter within the Council’s control. At p96, the Court of Appeal stated say that the contract between the owners and builders therefore doe...