Search Results

1. [2013] NZEmpC 34 Baker v St John Central Regional Trust Board [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...Baker was not obliged to accept work, as she accepted in evidence. Indeed from time to time she declined work even though she had previously indicated her availability. In Clark v Oxfordshire Health Authority 7 the English and Wales Court of Appeal held that a nurse, who had no obligation to accept hours offered (and likewise the employer had no obligation to offer work), was effectively a casual employee. The nurse had worked casual engagements for the Health Authority for over...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 121 Morgan Schofield v Transit Coachlines Ltd [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...etc.; (authorized) absence from work etc.; a period of such absence." 11 [31] The expression "unpaid leave" was considered by the Industrial Relations Court of South Australia in Flinders Ports Pty Ltd v Woolford, 12 which was an appeal from a decision of an Industrial Magistrate ordering the appellant to pay the respondent just over $5,000 for unpaid long service leave. The respondent was a casual port worker and there were gaps of as much as a fortnight, and up...

3. Henry v Wood - Part Whakanekeneke 1B (2014) 85 Taitokerau MB 175 (85 TTK 175) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...Sections 6 & 91 Land Trust (2005) 155 Aotea MB 269 (155 Aot 269), Eriwata v Trustees of Waitara SD Sections 6 & 91 Land Trust (2005) 26 Whanganui Appellate Court MB 192 (26 WGAP 192) at [8], Nicholls v Nicholls – Part Papaaroha 6B [2013 APPEAL 598], Thompson v Oppert –Wharekawa 5B South 4B1 and Wharekawa 5B South 4B2B2B2 (2006) 109 Hauraki MB 21 (109 H 21) and Trustees of Okahukura 8M2C2C2B v Christensen (2006) 176 Aotea MB 42 (176 AOT 42) http://www.brookersonline.co.nz...

4. Kupa Snr v DJ Whitfield and Sons Ltd – Omahu 4C Section 6 (2015) 45 Takitimu MB 219 (45 TKT 219) [pdf, 439 KB]

   ...rehearing, the court may affirm its former determination, or may vary or annul that determination, and may exercise any jurisdiction that it could have exercised on the original hearing. (6) When a rehearing has been granted, the period allowed for an appeal to the Maori Appellate Court shall not commence to run until the rehearing has been disposed of by a final order of the court. [31] In addition rule 8.1 of the Māori Land Court Rules 2011 provides: 8.1 Rehearing (1) An ap...

5. 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...

6. Scarborough v Kelly Services NZ Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 53 [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...in fact. High Court challenge foreshadowed [16] On several occasions during the hearing Ms Scarborough acknowledged she had no evidence of sexual harassment or discrimination independent of her own testimony but, undaunted, stated she would be appealing any adverse decision of the Tribunal to the High Court. Indeed, in opening her case she asked the Tribunal to state a case for the High Court under s 122 of the Act on the grounds that “fraud has taken place, and I have been ignore...

7. [2015] NZEmpC 71 Knapp v Locktite Aluminium Specialities Ltd [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...be circumstances in which such an outcome is entirely consistent with the remedial scheme of the Act, including the Court’s jurisdiction to make such decisions or orders as in equity and good conscience it thinks fit. 8 And as the Court of Appeal observed in Ark Aviation Ltd: 9 The purpose of the direction to assess the nature and extent of remedies, including sums which in general must be awarded to reimburse lost wages according to what is thought just and equitable, is to e...

8. RB v SCX LCRO 92/2014 (11 August 2014) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...s 213(2) of the Act to provide reasons for its decisions. [20] The role of this Office, when considering a review of a decision to lay charges against a practitioner before the Disciplinary Tribunal was the subject of comment by the Court of Appeal in Orlov. 3 In the first instance, the Court accepted that “[t]here is now oversight of the referral decision by the independent LCRO”.4 [21] In its judgment the Court also found there was no threshold test to meet before matters co...

9. Forrest v Kamara Developments Ltd [2010] NZWHT Auckland 28 [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...considered such evidence, I can state that the substance of such submissions would not have altered this determination. [20] Ms Macky for the claimants and the Council submitted that in Bowen v Paramount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd1 the Court of Appeal held that “contractors, architects and engineers are all subject to a duty to use reasonable care to prevent damage to persons whom they should reasonably expect to be affected by their work”. I agree with that submission....

10. Cole & Anor v Euro-Asia Investments Ltd & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 8 [pdf, 140 KB]

    ........................................................................................................15 CONCLUSION AND ORDERS ...............................................................................17 Page | 3 INTRODUCTION [1] This claim has been remitted back to the Tribunal by the High Court following an appeal against the Tribunal’s final determination of 19 April 2012.1 The Tribunal has been directed by the High Court to determine the quantum of damages...