Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 159 X v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 365 KB]

   ...but disputed the appropriateness of an uplift, because he maintained he was justified in rejecting the offer when it did not address the remedy he sought, which was reinstatement.4 [16] In Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell the Court of Appeal emphasised that a steely approach is required to Calderbank offers.5 They should not be put aside lightly when costs are being considered. In New Zealand School of Education v Nafissi the Court considered a rejected Calderbank offer...

2. ZA v YB LCRO 135/2014 Recusal (31 August 2016) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...to his discovery obligations. Costs were reserved, with the Commissioner seeking a substantial amount from the plaintiffs, as well as from Dr Muir, who was not a party to the litigation. His Honour declined to recuse himself. [40] The Court of Appeal set out the “principles which govern this area of the law” referring to the necessity for impartiality, the duty to sit, presumptive and apparent bias. Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 was referred to as encompassi...

3. IAA v van Zyl [2012] NZIACDT 59 (11 September 2012) [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...publication or non-publication. However, for a professional disciplinary body in contemporary New Zealand 6 to operate without its decisions being available to the public would be a truly exceptional situation. [42] The Court of Appeal in R v Liddell [1995] 1 NZLR 538 at 546 per Cooke P said, in relation to the question of name suppression: “[T]he starting point must always be the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech, open judicial proceedings, and the rig...

4. BORA Local Government Law Reform Bill [pdf, 405 KB]

   ...Section 21 does not affirm the right to be secure against all searches and seizures, just those that are unreasonable. It requires that certain procedural safeguards be established around the powers to ensure that they are reasonable. 14. The Court of Appeal has indicated that a balancing exercise is required to determine whether a search or seizure is unreasonable. The balance is between the legitimate interests of the state in law enforcement and the privacy interests of the individual....

5. Lawyers-and-Conveyancers-Lawyers-Practice-Rules-Amendment-Regulations-2022FINAL.pdf [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...be based on application process to be developed by the NZLS. 11 An application process will be established, setting out the evidence required to support a lawyer’s application. This process will include notification of outcomes and procedures for appeal. 12 The information will be removed from the publicly available register but remain on record with NZLS. When a member of the public has genuine reasons to access the work details of a lawyer, which have been removed from the register, NZLS...

6. [2023] NZEmpC 76 McMillan v Resque Corporation 20/20 Ltd [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...preserve the application for sequestration if the Authority’s order remains unsatisfied. That request is dealt with later. [12] In Peter Reynolds Mechanical Ltd t/a The Italian Job Service Centre v Denyer (Labour Inspector) the Court of Appeal referred to a range of factors to consider in assessing a fine under s 140(6).5 Those factors are not exhaustive but they include the nature of the default (that is whether it is deliberate or wilful), whether it is repeated, without e...

7. [2011] NZEmpC 124 Amien v Reipen and Others interlocutory [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...and it is appropriate for the Court to have regard to those principles recognised by the courts in earlier decisions relating to the grant of Mareva injunctions. Thus, in Shaw v Narain, 3 Justice Gault in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal emphasised the flexibility of the jurisdiction and noted: There must be a good arguable case that the person seeking the injunction will succeed in a claim against the owner of the property to be frozen. There must be a real risk...

8. KR v HS LCRO 227/13 (7 November 2014) [pdf, 107 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 the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Issue [16] In a professional disciplinary sense, Ms KR’s complai...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 222 Selwyn Foundation v Nayathodan re-issued [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...– not only to the applicant but also affected non-parties. Although an ability to challenge the refusal of a non-publication order at an interlocutory stage may disrupt unfinished Authority business, in the sense identified by the Court of Appeal in Rawlings, its distinguishing characteristic is that it is not the sort of determination that can subsequently be remedied on a challenge or by way of review. The horse will have well and truly bolted by that stage. … [27] In t...

10. LCRO 184/2020 BC v NP and RS decision & minute (20 May 2021 & 30 April 2021) [pdf, 257 KB]

    ...scope of review [53] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:17 … 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...