Search Results

1. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v Telecom NZ 3553 [2013] NZCOP 6 [pdf, 44 KB]

   ...Looking at the factors mentioned in r12(3), the word “flagrancy” also appears in s 121(2) of the Copyright Act 1994, in relation to the calculation of damages for infringement under other parts of the Act. RIANZ pointed to the New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Wellington Newspapers Ltd v. Dealers Guide Ltd 1994 2 NZLR 666 as an indication of the approach that the Tribunal might take. However we think that s 121(2) operates in an entirely different context to the present one....

2. [2018] NZEmpC 34 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...Matsuoka has set out substantial and arguable grounds for his personal grievance claim. [22] In exercising the discretion, there is also a need to balance the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant in the overall exercise. As the Court of Appeal observed in A S McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd:7 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for...

3. [2018] NZEnvC 64 Panuku Development Auckland Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 856 KB]

   ...Auckland Council in Support of Notice of Motion under section 291 of the RMA Applying for Waivers/Directions. 5 (a) In the 2016 decision Re Auckland CounciF the Court held that it had jurisdiction to make directions I grant waivers in relation to appeals on the Auckland Council's decisions on the Independent Hearing Panel's recommendations on the then proposed Auckland Unitary Plan. The Auckland Council in that case similarly sought to waive certain requirements of section...

4. [2018] NZEmpC 41 Rachelle v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...discretion to grant the application it is appropriate to take into account the merits of the challenge. [31] Balancing the interests of the plaintiff and defendant is the overriding consideration.13 In McLachlan v MEL Network Ltd the Court of Appeal said in reference to rule 5.45:14 The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order for substantial secur...

5. Baker TRI-2023-100-006 Procedural Order 4 [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...apportion liability between the respondent parties. It is not required to make “third party” type liability rulings. [41] The position regarding the longstop and contribution claims is currently before the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal dealt with the issue in Beca Carter Hollings and Ferner Limited v Wellington City Council8, finding that a contribution claim is not caught by the Building Act longstop provisions. The Supreme Court has yet to deliver its judgment on t...

6. Butcher v New Zealand Transport Agency (Third Statement of Claim) [2019] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...therefore ensure he or she sets out all the essential points that, if proved, would entitle him or her to the relief claimed. [15] In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679 at [84] the Court of Appeal set out the requirements of a statement of claim (High Court Rules, rr 5.17, 5.26 and 5.27). Those requirements apply equally in proceedings before the Tribunal. Specifically: [15.1] The pleading must be accurate, clear and intel...

7. BORA Employment Relations Amendment Bill [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...bargaining for a MECA, the right to freedom of association is arguably engaged because an employer is required to participate in collective bargaining alongside other employers based on their association with the industry or occupation. 26. The Court of Appeal has previously said that while the right to collective bargaining arises out of the right to freedom of association, it is generally not regarded as an element of freedom of association.3 However, the Canadian Supreme Court...

8. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v CAL2013-E000614 [2013] NZCOP 3 [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...at the factors mentioned in r 12(3), the word “flagrancy” also appears in s 121(2) of the Copyright Act 1994, in relation to the calculation of damages for infringement under other parts of the Act. RIANZ referred to the New Zealand Court of Appeal decision in Wellington Newspapers Ltd v Dealers Guide Ltd [1994] 2 NZLR 66 as an indication of the approach that the Tribunal might take. However, we think that s 121(2) operates in an entirely different context to the present one. That...

9. Rzoska v Randell - Succession to Te Maehe [2023] Chief Judge's MB155 (2023 CJ 155) [pdf, 397 KB]

   ...complained of. [12] In the current case, having considered the Case Manager’s Report and evidence provided by the parties, I am satisfied that an error in fact or law has been made due to a mistake [1] [2010] Māori Appellate Court MB 167 (2010 APPEAL 167) at 180. [2] [2009] Chief Judge’s MB 209-225 (2009 CJ 209) at 221. 2023 Chief Judge’s MB 163 or omission in the presentation of facts of the case to the Court, because there are two different people affected whose iden...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 25 Roberts v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 280 KB]

    ...Compensation Act, s 317(2)(b). pleadings, the Court must assume that pleaded breaches can be proved. There is no basis to strike out these claims. [30] In relation to the second element of the claim, in Attorney-General v B, the Court of Appeal confirmed that: “The critical issue is whether damages which are sought in a common law proceeding are damages ‘arising directly or indirectly out of personal injury covered’ by the legislation.”14 It said that the apprehen...