Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 6 Green v Transpacific Industries Group NZ Ltd [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...injunction for the relatively short balance of the restraint than that the defendant should be required to prove its loss and damages at trial. [37] Ultimately, this Court must take appropriate cognisance of the clear signal given by the Court of Appeal in Fuel Espresso v Hsieh 2 that not only are such provisions to be taken seriously by the parties that have entered into them expressly but that they are amenable to enforcement by injunction to the extent that they are reasonable a...

2. [2009] NZEmpC WC 10/09 Terson Industries Ltd v Loder [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...being what the parties using those words against the relevant background would reasonably have been understood to mean. 7 Mount Joy Farms Ltd v Kiwi South Island Co-operative Dairies Ltd (Court of Appeal, CA297/00, 6 December 2001) at para 38, per Hammond J for the Court 8 Hansells (NZ) Ltd v Ma [2007] ERNZ 637 at para [35] 9 Association of Staff in Tertiary Education Inc v Hampton, Chief Executive of the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic [20...

3. [2008] NZEmpC WC 12A/08 Orakei Group (2007) Ltd formerly PRP Auckland Ltd v Doherty [pdf, 52 KB]

   ...but what is required is more than two unrelated employers. There must be a sufficient degree of a relationship between the legal entities. In judging that relationship the Court will look for the element of common control. [57] The Court of Appeal for Ontario in Downtown Eatery (1993) Ltd v Ontario10 cited with approval the Court at first instance in Sinclair v Dover Engineering Services Ltd11 where the trial judge held that: The old-fashioned notion that no man can serve two ma...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 208 Caffe Coffee (NZ) Ltd v Farrimond interlocutory [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...and director. [23] I turn now to the issue of protections. In the leading decision as to issues of confidentiality arising in the process of discovery and inspection, Port Nelson Limited v Commerce Commission, 7 the full bench of the Court of Appeal confirmed that in some cases sufficient protection of confidential documents can be given by reason of the conditions which apply to discovered documents – which in the case of this Court are described in reg 51 of the Regulations....

5. CAC 10012 v Khan [2011] NZREADT 11 [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...licence and impose the maximum fine of $750. This decision and penalty were given orally by the Tribunal at the conclusion of the hearing. Our reasons for this decision are set out above. [45] The Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to the appeal provisions in s.116 Real Estate Agents Act 2008. DATED at Auckland this 15th day of June 2011 ______________________________ Ms K G Davenport Chairman ____________________________...

6. CAC20009 v Li [2015] NZREADT 48 [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...indicates a lack of candour that may be significant 9 when considering the fitness of a practitioner to remain in the legal profession.” [13] Mr Clancy also made reference to Bolton v the Law Society [1994] 2 ALL ER 486 where the Court of Appeal said: “Any solicitor who is shown to have discharged his professional duties with anything less than complete integrity, probity and trustworthiness must expect severe sanctions to be imposed upon him by the Solicitor’s Discipl...

7. Y v Xue [2015] NZIACDT 6 (13 February 2015) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...(DC Christchurch, CIV 2013-009-001684, 28 January 2014) are decisions primarily dealing with facts. In the High Court, both parties took the position that they would not support the District Court’s analysis of the facts; the High Court allowed the appeal on that basis. [22] None-the-less the District Court’s observation that when something is truly beyond a person’s control it does not trigger professional disciplinary consequences is an un-contentious and unexceptional professiona...

8. Gisborne District Council v Hautapu - Tatarahake No.1 (2015) 50 Tairawhiti MB 199 (50 TRW 199) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...Māori Land Court must take is first to consider the number of owners both on a head count and shareholding basis who 6 Smith v Courtney – Ohuirua No 2 [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 284 (2011 APPEAL 284). 7 Cumming – Omaio 8 and Omaio 45 (2009) 12 Waiariki Appellate MB 299 (12 AP 299). 50 Tairawhiti MB 208 indicate their support or otherwise for the application. That support or opposition must then be weighed havin...

9. Albert v Winitana - Heiotahoka 2B, Te Kopani 36 and Te Kopani 37 Ahu Whenua Trust (2015) 52 Tairawhiti MB 136 (52 TRW 136) - (PDF, 212 KB) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...duties as a trustee. (2) The Court may at any time, in respect of any trustee of a trust to which this section applies, enforce the obligation of his or her trust (whether by way of injunction or otherwise.) [17] In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal underscored the relevant duties of trustees. I adopt the principles set out in that decision. 6 The Court has extensive powers when considering an application for the enforcement of obligations. Initially the Court may require tr...

10. Quaife – Part Whakapoungakau 1B3G Roadway (2015) 127 Waiariki MB 171 (127 WAR 171) [pdf, 219 KB]

    ...of notice being given to owners and the consideration of their views. 9 The 7 Ngunguru Coastal Investments Limited – Horahora 1B4A2D1 and Other Blocks [2012] Māori Appellate Court MB 80 (2012 APPEAL 80). 8 At [71]. 9 Tauhara Middle 4A1J11A (2002) 75 Taupo MB 151 (75 TPO 151). 127 Waiariki MB 179 Court noted in that decision that the proposal to declare the Māori roadway a public road and vest it in the local council...