Search Results

1. [2008] NZEmpC WC 16/08 Wesley Community Action Trust v Dickson and anor [pdf, 25 KB]

   ...against a subsequent employer, and apparently on the same or very similar issues, has recently been determined by the Authority. So too has at least one other case and it appears that all of those cases determined by the Authority are destined for appeal if they have not been challenged already. The cases raise issues of principle about whether employees who sleep over at their employer’s premises, or perhaps at their homes, are to be regarded as working during such times for the...

2. [2006] NZEmpC AC 74/06 Sandifer v Plumbers Gasfitters & Drainlayers Board NZ [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...unable to agree. [2] The defendant now seeks a contribution towards its costs citing the well known principles in Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 438 and Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] 1 ERNZ 305. The Court of Appeal decisions indicate that a figure of 66 percent of actual and reasonably incurred costs provides a useful starting point in calculating the appropriate contribution of the losing party to the successful party’s costs. They also endo...

3. [2006] NZEmpC CC 2A/06 Rawlings v Sanco NZ Ltd [pdf, 32 KB]

   ...de novo (that is by “a full hearing of the entire matter” that was before the Authority), I must determine the just nature and scope of the challenge. As to its nature, I have determined that the challenge should be akin to a conventional appeal. That is, there will be an onus on Mr Rawlings to persuade the Court that the Authority’s determination on the information that was before it, was wrong. That is a narrower form of challenge than by hearing de novo in which the Cour...

4. [2012] NZEmpC 192 Sayers v S B McPherson Holdings Ltd [pdf, 71 KB]

   ...and the merits. However, in my judgment in McLeod v National Hearing Care (NZ) Ltd, 2 I made the observation that, in my view, in cases like the present where the Court is dealing with a hearing de novo rather than with a traditional type of appeal, the significance of the merits factor should not be overstated. [11] The principal reason for the delay is explained in the application for leave in these terms: A witness for whom a summons had been issued for the ERA hearing bu...

5. [2013] NZEmpC 6 Weston v Advkit Para Legal Services Ltd [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...justified indemnity costs. Discussion [15] I am not persuaded that the analogy of the District Court Rules should apply as the Employment Court has a very wide jurisdiction to deal with costs, which has been dealt with in three leading Court of Appeal cases. 5 Those cases indicate that the 5 Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305 (CA); Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd starting point of two-thirds of the actual...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 161 Vince Roberts Electrical Ltd v Carroll and Roberts [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...the plaintiff and Mr Carroll and any costs award can only really be made against Mr Roberts. [6] The principles applying as to costs awards in the Employment Court are now well established. 3 The principles to be extracted from those Court of Appeal 3 Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305 (CA); Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 438 (CA); and Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly [2004] 1 ERNZ 172 (CA)....

7. McGregor v Hutchison - Mangamaire B13A Trust (2015) 40 Tākitimu MB 19 (40 TKT 19) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...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. [7] In terms of authorities I refer to the Court of Appeal decision Rameka v Hall, the reasoning of which I adopt here. 3 Discussion [8] This is an uncomplicated case. The respondent has been convicted, as described by Judge Davis in the Napier District Court, “of receiving in terms that...

8. Wilson - Waiwakaiho H2B (2012) 288 Aotea MB 63 (288 AOT 63) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...3 Hammond - Whangawehi 1B3H1 (2007) 34 Gisborne Appellate MB 185 (34 APGS 185) 4 Regeling - Orokawa 3B (2009) 7 Taitokerau Appellate MB 131 (7 APWH 131) 5 Whaanga v Niania – Anewa block (2011) 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428) 288 Aotea MB 67 [19] Third, the Court is to exercise its general discretion mindful that it may refuse to exercise that discretion if it would not achieve the principal purpose of Part 14 of the Act: section 287(2). The p...

9. Sullivan v Sullivan-Teepa – Te Haroto 2B2B Trust (2014) 31 Tākitimu MB 138 (31 TKT 138) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...every trust constituted under this Part the court shall appoint 1 or more responsible trustees, and may appoint 1 or more advisory trustees and 1 or more custodian trustees. [10] A leading authority on the appointment of trustees is the Court of Appeal decision Clarke v Karaitiana.6 I adopt the reasoning set out in that judgment. Discussion [11] This is a case simply about who should be put in charge of this land. Two of the owners, doubtless close whanaunga, who have a history...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 16 NZ Meatworkers & Related Trades Union Inc v Alliance Groups Ltd [pdf, 96 KB]

    ...no more than $45,000 plus GST of the costs actually incurred by the defendant can properly be regarded as reasonable. Proportion of reasonable costs which the plaintiff ought to pay [16] In accordance with the guidelines set by the Court of Appeal, I take as a starting point an award of costs of two thirds of $45,000, that is $30,000. I disregard GST on the assumption that the defendant is GST registered and will already have recovered the whole of the GST component of its costs...