Search Results

1. LCRO 121/2021 RF v DE Law on behalf of ABC Services Limited (17 August 2022) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...proceeded by way of an audio-visual hearing with Mr RF on 2 August 2022. 8 Nature and scope of review [35] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:12 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 i...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 26 Cross v Onerahi Hotel Ltd [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...without good cause or communication with his or her employer. In such circumstances, the employee has essentially unilaterally terminated the employment agreement and there is no dismissal. [33] In E N Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers 5 the Court of Appeal made it clear that an employer should be cautious in drawing an inference that an employee has abandoned their employment and should take reasonable steps to make inquiries of the employee. 6 This is reinforced by the statutory...

3. [2020] NZEmpC 54 Bennett v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...on review (1) Except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction or as provided in section 179, no determination, order, or proceedings of the Authority are removable to any court by way of certiorari or otherwise, or are liable to be challenged, appealed against, reviewed, quashed, or called in question in any court. (1A) No review proceedings under section 194 may be initiated in relation to any matter before the Authority unless— (a) the Authority has issued a determination un...

4. [2018] NZEmpC 56 Rodionov v Ozone Technologies Ltd [pdf, 363 KB]

   ...that these principles remain appropriate: Fagotti v Acme & Co Ltd.21 [42] Next, a question which arises in this case is whether Ozone should be regarded as the successful party. Usually, costs follow the event.22 [43] However, the Court of Appeal in Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly noted that cases where parties have mixed success may be different. [44] The Court noted that it is not necessarily easy to determine who ‘won’ the case, and who would thus be entitled to costs.23...

5. Harland v Prentice - Mana Ahuriri Incorporated Society (2017) 57 Takitimu MB 1 (57 Takitimu 1) [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...number of purposes. The purpose must relate to some matter of business that is pressing at the time. It must also be established that the question of 9 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 577 (2011 APPEAL 577) at [40] 10 Ibid at [43] see also Manuirirangi v Nga Hapu o Nga Ruahine Iwi Inc [2010] Chief Judge’s MB 355 (2015 CJ 355) at [33] 57 Tākitimu MB 9 representation for the particular purpose described has not and cannot b...

6. BZ v FI LCRO 245/2013 (5 April 2016) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...helpful guidance on the nature and scope of a LCRO review. She described the review framework in the Act as creating “a very particular statutory process”.1 [16] Her Honour noted that: 2 …the power of review is much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching his o...

7. E73 Prof David Williams - EIC - Ngāti Whātua Orākei [pdf, 5.6 MB]

   ...Manukau Harbour. 12 More recently I have been asked to assist the Institute of Judicial Studies by presenting at its courses on "Tikanga for Judges", attended by a number of judges of the District Court, High 2228 3 Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. This course, held each year, was initiated by Justice Joseph Williams in 2014, and is a two-day wānanga to familiarise members of the judiciary with traditional tikanga Maori concepts, and how tikanga might be r...

8. [2021] NZIACDT 10 - YC v Wan (19 May 2021) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...and requesting his explanation. [28] Mr Gu advised the Authority on 15 December 2020 that the complainant had been granted a s 61 visa on 7 January 2020. She had spent $5,010 to regularise her status under the s 61 process and $1,850 for an appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. The total cost of $6,860 would not have occurred but for Ms Han’s misconduct. There was also the loss of wages for the period from 22 August 2019 to 6 January 2020 when she was an overstay...

9. [2021] NZEmpC 93 Gestro v Relph [pdf, 287 KB]

   ...must determine the real nature of the relationship by taking all relevant matters into consideration, as just discussed. 4 Three Foot Six Ltd v Bryson [2004] 2 ERNZ 526 (CA) at [31] per McGrath J dissenting, this approach being undisturbed on appeal to the Supreme Court. 5 Franix Construction Ltd v Tozer [2014] NZEmpC 159, [2014] ERNZ 347 at [44]; citing Singh v Eric James and Associates Ltd [2010] NZEmpC 1 at [16]. 6 Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [2017] NZEmpC 150, [2...

10. Pickering v Reihana - Motatau 2 Section 21B2E (2021) 231 Taitokerau MB 103 (231 TTK 103) [pdf, 323 KB]

    ...The applicants were not represented in this proceeding, and so they have not framed their case according to legal principles. In essence, they claim that the house is held on constructive trust for Ngawiki. [30] In Lankow v Rose, the Court of Appeal held that, in order to recognise a constructive trust, the applicant must show:13 (a) Contributions, direct or indirect, to the property in question; (b) The expectation of an interest therein; (c) That such expectation is a reaso...