Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 6 Edwards v Board of Trustees of Bay of Islands College [pdf, 821 KB]

   ...this case [11] There is another factor affecting dismissals for particularly serious misconduct. As long ago as in New Zealand (with exceptions) Shipwrights etc Union v Honda New Zealand Ltd, 3 the Labour Court established (and the Court of Appeal confirmed) 4 that the more serious an allegation against an employee said to justify dismissal, the higher the expected standard of proof of that allegation must be. That is a principle which has been followed consistently over decade...

2. Wilton TRI-2021-100-002 [2023] NZWHT AUCKLAND 01 [pdf, 629 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2021-100-002 [2023] NZWHT AUCKLAND 01 BETWEEN HELEN BERNADETTE O’SULLIVAN, FIONA CHERIE WHITE & ANDREW RODGER WILTON as trustees of the WILTON FAMILY TRUST Claimants AND DEANE FLUIT BUILDER LTD First Respondent AND TAB DESIGN LTD (Removed) Second Respondent AND TILING SOLUTIONS WANAKA LTD Third Respondent AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Fourth Respondent AND HEMPEL (WATTYL) NEW ZEALAND LTD formally called VALSPAR PA

3. Regulatory Impact Statement Crimes Act Part 8 Offences Against the Person 1961 Amendment Bill [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...associated with the legislative process to amend the Crimes Act 1961. There will be costs associated with the need for Police, Crown Prosecutors and the Judiciary to become familiar with the new offences, and some costs and court time associated with appeals to clarify the interpretation of new provisions. For Police, there will be costs associated with training staff, preparing training materials, and amending the Police Manual. Defence counsel will also need to become familiar with t...

4. [2007] NZEmpC WC 20A/07 Gaskin v Grenside [pdf, 32 KB]

   ...and binding on and enforceable by them. The terms may not be cancelled under s7 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 and, except for enforcement purposes, no party may seek to bring the terms before the Authority or the Court whether by action, appeal, application for review, or otherwise (s149(3)). The parties must affirm their request to the mediator knowing of these matters. [21] A person who breaches an agreed term of settlement to which subsection (3) applies is liable...

5. [2007] NZEmpC CC 19/07 Sefo v Sealord Shellfish Ltd [pdf, 37 KB]

   ...or any part of it to elect to have the matter heard by the Court. [10] Although the heading to s179 refers to “Challenges to determinations of Authority” this is the only reference to a challenge. Section 179 does not confer a right of appeal or challenge in the usual sense of those words. However, the word “challenge” has come to be used for the process of electing to have a matter heard. [11] The starting point under s179 is that a party to a matter before the...

6. [2011] NZEmpC 124 Amien v Reipen and Others interlocutory [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...and it is appropriate for the Court to have regard to those principles recognised by the courts in earlier decisions relating to the grant of Mareva injunctions. Thus, in Shaw v Narain, 3 Justice Gault in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal emphasised the flexibility of the jurisdiction and noted: There must be a good arguable case that the person seeking the injunction will succeed in a claim against the owner of the property to be frozen. There must be a real risk...

7. [2010] NZEmpC 56 EBIIWU & Ors v Carter Holt Harvey Ltd [pdf, 28 KB]

   ...successful. [2] The statutory provision by which the Court can order costs is cl 19 of Schedule 3 to the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). The Court has a very broad discretion (although exercisable within constraints imposed by the Court of Appeal1) and the Court’s equity and good conscience jurisdiction also applies. 1 Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305; Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ...

8. [2010] NZEmpC 48 DAS Transport Ltd v Kirkwood [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...intention to challenge is minimal. [19] There is no prejudice to Mr Kirkwood arising from the period between the expiry of the 28 days and the bringing to his notice of the intention to challenge. Although, as with most litigants who learn of an appeal brought right at the end of the period within which it may be by right and asserting prejudice by reason of delay of finality, Mr Kirkwood cannot in truth be said to have been prejudiced by the short delay, at least in a way that can...

9. Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...1 R v Oakes (1986) 26 DLR (4th) 200 (Canadian Supreme Court); S v Bhulwana; S v Gwadiso (1995) 2 SACR 748 (South African Constitutional Court) and R v Sin Yau-Ming [1992] LRC (Const) 547 (Hong Kong Court of Appeal). 2 Hansen v R [2007] NZSC 7 at [123]. iii. is the limit in due proportion to the importance of the objective? Is the objective sufficiently important? 13. The objective of the temporary drug order provisions is to enable a respon

10. [2009] NZEmpC AC 24/09 Turners and Growers Ltd v Marshall [pdf, 26 KB]

    ...[3] After hearing counsel in support of the application, I decided that one of the essential statutory ingredients for granting such an order was not established on the evidence. Because, however, the plaintiff should have opportunities to both appeal against that refusal and to apply without notice for other injunctive orders, I prohibit publication of this judgment beyond the plaintiff and its solicitors and counsel for the period of 7 days from today’s date or such further perio...