Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 176 Lean Meats Oamaru Ltd v NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...or what their negotiating stance was at any particular time. 16 [22] Later in the same judgment, Judge Ford referred to another decision which contains statements that are relevant for present purposes: 17 [18] Historically, as the Court of Appeal recognised in Silver Fern Farms, contextual considerations have always had a particular significance in relation to the interpretation of industrial agreement. At [15] of that case the Court of Appeal noted with approval 18 the app...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 163 Matajod v Crazy Horse Ltd [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...Supreme Court’s observation that “the merits will not generally be relevant where there has been an insignificant delay as a result of a legal adviser’s error and the proposed respondents have suffered no prejudice (beyond the fact of an appeal)”.8 I have already found that the delay was not insignificant; it was not the result of a legal adviser’s error; and if leave is granted to pursue a challenge, Ms Matajod will be exposed to prejudice. [17] The merits of the propo...

3. [2023] NZEnvC 125 Bay of Islands Maritime Park Incorporated v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 436 KB]

   pNRP – Topic 14 – confidentiality order IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2023] NZEnvC 125 IN THE MATTER OF appeals under clause 14(1) of Schedule 1 of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an application for confidentiality orders under section 277 of the Act BETWEEN BAY OF ISLANDS MARITIME PARK INCORPORATED (ENV-2019-AKL-000117) ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED (...

4. [2007] NZEmpC WC 23/07 NZ Tramways and Public Passenger Transport Authorities Employees IUOW v Cityline (NZ) Ltd t/a Cityline Hutt Valley [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...of infinite duration – because it contained no provision for expiry – was void and of no effect as a collective employment contract. I would so construe such a contract because of its fundamental non-compliance with the Act. [24] The Court of Appeal has also held that, in spite of non-compliance with certain sections of the Employment Contracts Act, s25 left the character of the collective contract intact.2 [25] The Employment Relations Act 2000 has no equivalent to s25 and s163...

5. [2024] NZEmpC 49 Chantama v McKerchar Lamb Limited [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...While the two provisions contain different criteria, the authorities relating to r 4.56 and the general principles developed in the High Court may provide useful guidance to inform the exercise of the discretion under s 221.6 [12] The Court of Appeal has observed that the approach to applications for joinder under r 4.56 is liberal and that it imposes a fairly low threshold.7 As has been noted 4 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 221(a). 5 McCook v Chief Executive of the Inland R...

6. Pou - The Petuere me Hemo Wharemate Whānau Trust [2018] Chief Judge's MB 626 (2018 CJ 626) [pdf, 316 KB]

   ...order was made or through submissions on the law. Issues [9] The issues to determine in this case are:- 1 [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) 2 [2010] Maori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 632 (1) whether Petuere Rauriki or Raurihi and Petuere Rauriki Tuhiwai Wharemata are the same people, and if not (2) whether there was a mistake in the presentation of the facts to the Court,...

7. Tamihana - Ngaiotonga (B) (2008) 121 Whangarei MB 241 (121 WH 241) [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...previously been rebuffed in atly effort to use or develop the land or that he has even approached his co-owners about his ideas for the land. The pat-tition is not for the purpose of resolving an intractable dispute amongst owners. It does not appeal' that the owners have met to consider the use of the land for many years. Mr Tamihana 's application has more or less come out of the blue. [1 8] It is also significant that this land has a relatively natTOW area of coastal fi...

8. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Horsley [2014] NZLCDT 47 [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...relationship. 1 Daniels v Complaints Assessment Committee 2 of the Wellington District Law Society [2011] 3 NZLR 850. 4 [12] Mr Hodge referred us to a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Law Society of New South Wales v McNamara.2 In that matter the Court held that the attempt to deceive the Law Society was serious enough, but the attempt to deceive the Statutory Committee (the equivalent of the Tribunal) was eve...

9. Myhre - Ngapaeruru No 1B No 2C No 2 (2019) 73 Tākitimu MB 176 (73 TKT 176) [pdf, 340 KB]

   ...custodian trustee. (5) For every trust constituted under this Part the court shall appoint 1 or more responsible trustees, and may appoint 1 or more advisory trustees and 1 or more custodian trustees. [18] In Clarke v Karaitiana the Court of Appeal considered the nature of the Court’s discretion to appoint trustees under s 222 of the Act:5 [51] The touchstone is s 222(2) itself. In appointing a trustee, the Court is obliged to have regard to the ability, experience and knowle...

10. Q v I LCRO 41 / 2009 (2 June 2009) [pdf, 22 KB]

    ...therefore lead to detriment to the client. Understandably Mr Q was of the view that Lawyer I held such information. Lawyer I took the opposite view. The question of what kind of information might be relevant was 4 considered by the Court of Appeal in Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co v Tower Corporation [1998] 3 NZLR 641. In that case the Court rejected an argument at general information about the manner in which business was conducted was relevant to the new matter....