Search Results

1. [2020] NZEmpC 172 New Zealand Technology Group Hawkes Bay Ltd v Flashoff [pdf, 340 KB]

   ...freezing order could be made, the Court had to be satisfied that the applicant had a “good arguable case on an accrued or prospective cause of action” against the respondent.4 The Court was satisfied to the necessary standard. [24] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that a good arguable case is established if the allegations in the proposed claim are capable of tenable argument and are supported by sufficient evidence, bearing in mind the early stage at which the application is...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 209 Ale v Kids At Home Ltd [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...background to the events that should be compensated for. [26] I do not read the judgment as authority for the proposition that pre-90-day events morph into in-time grievances simply because they form part of the background context. As the Court of Appeal observed in Waikato District Health Board v Clear, there can be no separate liability on an employer based on out of time actions or events. 7 The point was also emphasised in Coy v Commissioner of Police where it was held that:...

3. LCRO 186/2022 DV v AW (30 October 2023) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...did not wish to incur further costs by actively participating in the review. Nature and scope of review [64] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:17 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It invo...

4. [2024] NZEmpC 98 Crichton v Dig Tip Earthworks Ltd Anor [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...and (ab) the terms may not be cancelled under sections 36 to 40 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017; and (b) except for enforcement purposes, no party may seek to bring those terms before the Authority or the court, whether by action, appeal, application for review, or otherwise. (3A)… (4) A person who breaches an agreed term of settlement to which subsection (3) applies is liable to a penalty imposed by the Authority. [16] Section 151 provides: 151 Enforcemen...

5. [2010] NZEmpC 30 Minhinnick V NZ Steel Ltd [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...Nevertheless it has applicability in light of the issue which has been raised in respect of the expired warning. Judge Travis at para [49] of the decision stated as follows: [49] Further, the authorities cited by counsel, including Reid in the Court of Appeal, make it clear that the policy does not necessarily have to be followed to the letter. This flexibility in considering the actions of an employer which has failed to follow its own policy has been enhanced by the introduction...

6. LCRO 167/2022 LY v SN, MB, TD and KV (8 September 2023) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...paid for the house, and what the next lowest bidder was prepared to pay”. [58] [Law firm B] referred to matters relating to causation to dispute the possibility of any order for compensation being entertained. They then refer to the Court of Appeal judgment in Roberts v Jules Consultancy Limited (in liquidation).12 In that case, the Court held that “the normal measure of loss in such a case (often termed a “no transaction” case) is the difference between the price paid and th...

7. [2023] NZEnvC 073 Napier City Council v McMillan [pdf, 396 KB]

   ...many exceptions that it could not truly be used as a scale. Nonetheless, experience has shown that many of the Court’s awards have tended to fall within four bands, as follows: (a) no costs, which is normally the position in relation to plan appeals under Schedule 1 to the Act or in cases where some aspect of the public interest counts against any award being made; (b) standard costs, which generally fall between 25 – 33% of the costs actually and reasonably incurred by a suc...

8. PGP & QGP v FS LCRO 143/2014 (27 August 2015) [pdf, 72 KB]

   ...lodge a claim against Mr JS in the Disputes Tribunal. That claim was unsuccessful. Mr and Mrs GP consider that the decision delivered by the Disputes Tribunal was manifestly wrong, but advise that they did not have the financial resources to appeal the decision. Their attention then turned to Mr FS’s involvement in the transaction. [22] The complaints process established under pt 7 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 is a statutory regime which governs the process by which...

9. Karaitiana-Bryant v Karaitiana - Waipahihi 4H [2024] Chief Judge's MB 278 (2024 CJ 278) [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...that standard’s inherent flexibility that takes into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.4 This means that the applicant must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [19] The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:5 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the cou...

10. Peters v Eruera - Kaikoura No.4 (2011) 40 Waiariki MB 206 (40 WAR 206) [pdf, 131 KB]

    ...none so that all the 8 children would have some ownership of the block. Most of them paid Mac Eruera back but others did not. In June 1992, George Roberts applied to the Māori Land Court to partition the block but was unsuccessful. He then appealed to the Māori Appellate Court in November 1992 and was also unsuccessful. In August 1993, the Māori Land Court issued an order vesting ownership of Kaikoura 4 in Mr George Roberts and Mr Mac Eruera. It also issued a trust order app...