Search Results

1. [2008] NZEmpC Maritime Union of NZ Inc and ors v TLNZ Ltd and anor [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...statutory consultation requirements, and would amount to unlawful and/or unreasonable directions in employment when implemented. They say the approach to an order for costs in cases such as this is mandated by a line of judgments in the Court of Appeal including Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 438 and Health Waikato Limited v Elmsly [2004] 1 ERNZ 172. Following those cases, the Court’s first task is to determine whether the costs actually incurred were reasonably incur...

2. [2009] NZEmpC WC 7/09 NZ Meat Workers Union v Silver Fern Farms [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...3 New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Union Inc v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd [2006] ERNZ 1005 at para [16] [18] In Pyne Gould Guinness Ltd v Montgomery Watson (NZ) Ltd4 the Court of Appeal described the use of the surrounding circumstances to ensure the natural meaning of the words is correct as “cross-checking.” [19] In ASTE v Chief Executive of Bay of Plenty Polytechnic5 Judge Colgan (as he then was) held that the i

3. CAC20005 v Sengupta [2015] NZREADT 81 [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...Downtown Apartments Limited [2010] NZREADT 06. 2 E v REAA and N [2013] NZREADT 27 [Tab 1]. 5 was not real estate agency work and the Committee found it did not meet the threshold for laying a charge for misconduct. The Tribunal found on the appeal that: [19] We have considered the facts of what is essentially an employment dispute between [Mr E’s company] and Mr N. There might be (limited) circumstances where an employment dispute could be said to amount to disgraceful...

4. Peters v Foster – Hereheretau B2J8 and B2 K2B (2015) 54 Tairawhiti MB 147 (54 TRW 147) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...prompted the application for removal [14] Counsel for the applicant filed submissions on 20 July 2015 and presented submissions on behalf of the applicant on 21 July 2015. [15] These submissions set out the duties of trustees referring to the Court of Appeal decision in Rameka v Hall to include “the duty of diligence and prudence as an ordinary prudent person of business would exercise and conduct in that business if it were his or her own”. 4 And also that “trustees are sub...

5. Goodhew v CAC 20004 & Anor [2013] NZREADT 100 [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...READT 005/13 IN THE MATTER OF a charge laid under s.91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 20004) AND GEORGE GOODHEW Defendant READT 013/13 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN GEORGE GOODHEW Appellant AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC 20004) First Respondent AND MARK SCOTT Second Respondent MEMBERS OF TR...

6. IHC NZ v Ministry of Education (Non-Party Access) [2013] NZHRRT 2 [pdf, 72 KB]

   ...was not then aware of the later decisions of Asher J in Commerce Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd and of Heath J in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society (No. 7) respectively. It is noted, however, that Commerce Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd has been appealed to the Court of Appeal. It is understood (at the time of writing) that no date has yet been set for the hearing of that appeal. 7 [23] Until the proper interpretation of r 3.16 has been determined by the Court of Appeal we in...

7. McAneney v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 63 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...through Ms Macky that Mr Kells was at all material times the developer of the home as he was responsible for the design and building of the home as part of the three townhouse development at 21 Inkerman Street, Onehunga. [20] The Court of Appeal decision in Mt Albert Borough Council v Johnson1 is authority for the proposition that a developer owes a non- delegable duty to an intended owner of a home to properly supervise the construction of the home. Cooke J, and with whom Some...

8. Richards - Karaka Huarua A and B (2010) 10 Taitokerau MB 94 (10 TTK 94) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...several hearings and two site inspections, Judge Spencer dismissed the application for partition on 16 April 1996 (81 Wh 15) as it did not meet the requirements of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 (“1993 Act”). [12] Judge Spencer’s decision was appealed successfully. On 13 August 1996 (5 APWH 1) the Maori Appellate Court ruled that the lower Court had erred in determining the application pursuant to the 1993 Act. The application was referred back to the lower Court for re-heari...

9. AQ v KX & Anor LCRO 274/2013 (17 May 2016) [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Nature and Scope of Review

10. DG v YT Ltd [2014] NZDT 566 (19 May 2014) [pdf, 157 KB]

    ...have gone out at lunchtime at all had she elected to travel with a supervisor, as there was none to go with her in that context. In that sense, had she had a supervisor with her, she would not have suffered the loss at all. However, the Court of Appeal has determined that this simplistic “but/for” test cannot be used to establish contribution, as it would deny the application of s11 in too many cases (NZ Insurance Co Ltd v Harris [1990] 1 NZLR 10 (CA)). b. YT points out that...