Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 94 Hutton & ors V Provencocadmus Ltd (In Receivership) & ors [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...their appointment, the receivers had sent them notices of immediate termination, it was held by 5 (3rd ed, Lexis Nexis, Wellington, 2008). 6 At 11.12. 7 [1998] 1 NZLR 30. the Court of Appeal that the notices were lawfully given under s 32(1)(b) and relieved the receivers of personal liability. Once a notice has been lawfully given to an employee under s 32(1)(b) within the 14 days (or any extended period ordered by the Cour...

2. EMPC Document bundle example [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...investigate the problem and issue a determination. • If one or other of the parties is not happy with the Employment Relations Authority’’s determination, they can refer the problem to the Employment Court. In limited cases, there is a right to appeal a decision of the Employment Court to the Court of Appeal. Personal Grievances If the problem is a personal grievance, then the Employee must raise it within 90 days of when the facts that give rise to the grievance occur or come...

3. [2007] NZEmpC WC 17/07 Finau & Ors v Southward Engineering Co Ltd [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...September 2006, AC 49/06 and NZ Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc v Air Nelson Limited unreported, Chief Judge Colgan, 17 June 2007, CC 12/07 2 [2001] ERNZ 822, 838 of striking or locked out employees. On appeal, this was reinforced by the Court of Appeal in that case3 which found that s97 confers employment related rights on employees and constrains the bargaining power of an employer for the benefit of the striking or locked out employees. T...

4. [2008] NZEmpC AC 47/08 Allright v Canon NZ Ltd [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...support of this concern, Mr Hood pointed to the fact, which was acknowledged by Mr Allright, that he had included confidential information in his original affidavit. I was also referred to the dictum of Lord Denning in the English Court of Appeal in Littlewoods Organisation Ltd v Harris [1978] 1 All ER 1026 at page 1038 where he said: … it is appropriate that a covenant, restricting an employee from full freedom of taking other employment when he leaves his existing empl...

5. [2008] NZEmpC WC 7B/08 Hawkins v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...employee has sought reinstatement and such reinstatement is practicable, there is an expectation that the order should be made. [7] In New Zealand Educational Institute v Board of Trustees of Auckland Normal Intermediate School2 the Court of Appeal endorsed the tests for practicability applied by the Employment Court. The essential elements of this test are: • The onus is on the employer to establish that reinstatement is not practicable. • Practicability is not the same as...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 134 Hungry Hound Ltd v Hayes [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances at the time the dismissal or action occurred. [30] In a redundancy situation, this requires a consideration of both substantive and procedural factors. [31] The Court of Appeal discussed these requirements in Grace Team Accounting Limited v Brake. 5 In its judgment the Court stated: 6 If the decision to make an employee redundant is shown not to be genuine (where genuine means the decision is based on bu...

7. [2015] NZEmpC 188 Randwick Meat Co Ltd v Burns [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...removed by the Authority it should, in the exercise of its discretion, decline to refer the matter back to the Authority because both parties had indicated that any determination of the Authority on the unjustified dismissal claim would inevitably be appealed to the Court. Ms Buckett made the observation that the parties had attended "multiple mediations" as well as a judicial settlement conference, all to no avail. Discussion [27] I have given careful consideration to...

8. Kotahitanga Log Haulage Limited v Forest Distribution Limited - Mangaroa (2015) 121 Waiariki MB 149 (121 WAR 149) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...both as to the nature of the contractual arrangements and the various parties involved that would, in my view, more properly be dealt with by the Civil Courts. In terms of the interpretation I have applied to section 18(1)(d), I note the Court of Appeal’s consideration of the jurisdiction of this Court in the Attorney General and Māori Land Court case (the Tahora case). 5 Whilst not specifically on section 18(1)(d), the Court of Appeal does highlight the importance of reading sec...

9. Whaanga v Whaanga - Town Section 90 Mahia and Town Section 91 Mahia (2014) 42 Tairawhiti MB 292 (42 TRW 292) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...[15] On 1 October 1997 succession orders were made at 98 Wairoa MB 7-24 in respect to Ihaka Whaanga’s estate. An order was also made changing the status of sections 90 and 91 from General land to Māori land pursuant to s 133 of TTWM. [16] Mac appealed these orders to the Māori Appellate Court. On 24 February 2000 2 the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal with respect to the status order but cancelled the succession orders because it found that the lower Court had made the succ...

10. McGregor v Hutcheson - Porongahau 1B4'O'2 Trust (2015) 43 Tākitimu MB 15 (43 TKT 15) [pdf, 326 KB]

    ...trustee has failed to carry out the duties of a trustee satisfactorily; or (b) because of lack of competence or prolonged absence, the trustee is or will be incapable of carrying out those duties satisfactorily. [18] In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal cited with approval the relevant legal test for removal of trustees as set out in by the Māori Appellate Court in Apatu v Trustees of Owhaoko C1 and 2C: 10 [30] The settled approach in the Maori Appellate Court in applying s 240 i...