Search Results

1. [2019] NZREADT 56 - CAC 521 v Wright - Penalty (10 December 2019) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...contribution towards the Committee’s costs. The payment must be made within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [20] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. __________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson __________________ Mr J Doogue Member...

2. LCRO 11/2019 AA v ZZ (31 July 2019) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...review if satisfied that it— (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action; or (b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or (c) is frivolous or vexatious; or (d) is otherwise an abuse of process. [33] In Heenan v Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal discussed an earlier decision of the Court,5 and observed that a factor to consider when determining whether or not proceedings could be termed “vexatious”, was to determine whether the proceedings had a reasonable basis and co...

3. [2020] NZREADT 14 - Rogers (20 March 2020) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...review by the Tribunal. Outcome [25] Ms Rogers’ application for review is dismissed. [2020] NZREADT 14 - Rogers [26] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of Act, which sets out the right of appeal to the High Court. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. ___________________ Hon P J Andrews Chairperson ___________________ Mr G Denley Member...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 97 Bowen v Bank of New Zealand [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...of the Court at Auckland by payment of the sum of $10,000; (b) all further steps in this proceeding be stayed until security has been given and Ms Bowen has paid outstanding costs awarded to the BNZ by the Employment Court2 and the Court of Appeal3 in the total amount of $41,285.50; and (c) costs. These proceedings are part of a larger issue [4] Ms Bowen worked for the BNZ between 1979 and 1999 and recommenced employment with the BNZ in September 2015. Ms Bowen’s employm...

5. LCRO 157/2020 SA v RB (27 May 2022) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...audio-visual means on 12 May 2022. In attendance were S, Mr KC and Mr RB.11 Nature and scope of review [24] 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 inv...

6. OK Ltd v HO Ltd & BG [2020] NZDT 1519 (21 July 2020) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...Disputes Tribunal filing fee. 3. The application first came before the Disputes Tribunal on 18 March 2019 where it was adjourned for further hearing until 9 May 2019. On 20 May 2019, the Tribunal ordered HO to pay $5,033.74 to OK Ltd. 4. OK Ltd appealed the decision in the District Court. His Honour Judge Kellar quashed the Tribunal’s decision and ordered a rehearing in the Tribunal to determine the following issues: i. Whether BG agreed that if OK Ltd completed the plumbing...

7. [2021] NZEmpC 133 Ngawaka v Global Security Solutions Ltd [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...is discretionary and broad. In exercising the discretion regard must be had to the overall justice of the case, and the interests of both parties need to be carefully weighed up. The required balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal at AS McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd as follows:8 [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...

8. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Nguy [2021] NZLCDT 26 (21 October 2021) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...disclosure of files and records. In fact, Mr Nguy was, at the relevant time, able to respond to Mr Collins coherently in his request for documents (11 February 2021), complain about the Law Society investigator (15 March 2021) and give instructions to appeal against early publication of the interim suspension order. [5] Mr Nguy sought to avoid compulsory strike-off by earlier inviting the New Zealand Law Society to remove him from the roll on the basis that being a lawyer was str...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 82 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...filed written submissions and Mr Halse also filed an affidavit in support of his application. Accordingly, it is appropriate to now issue a judgment. [6] As noted by Mr Halse, I represented WorkSafe New Zealand in the High Court and Court of Appeal in proceedings brought against it by Ms Osborne.5 It is a matter of public record that the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal.6 No criticism was made of counsel and the case is completely unrelated to Mr H...

10. [2022] NZEmpC 80 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Samra Holdings Ltd T/A Te Puna Liquor Centre [pdf, 226 KB]

    ...135, [2017] 1 NZLR 310 at [2] in relation to the principle generally; in relation to access to Court documents, see the discussion in Commissioner of Police v Doyle [2017] NZHC 3049; and Berry v Crimson Consulting Ltd [2017] NZHC 3026 upheld on appeal in Crimson Consulting Ltd v Berry [2018] NZCA 460, [2019] NZAR 30. (e) the principle of open justice (including the encouragement of fair and accurate reporting of, and comment on, court hearings and decisions): (f) the fre...