Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 168 Lawson v NZ Transport Agency interlocutory [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...they are ultimately awarded against him. Indeed this is his explanation for not satisfying the costs award made against him in the Authority. [7] There is a need to balance the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant. As the Court of Appeal observed in A S McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd: 5 [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...

2. [2007] NZEmpC CC 23/07 Coy v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...Mr Martin for the Commissioner sought to require the plaintiff to be limited in the evidence that she will be entitled to adduce leading to her dismissal grievance by reference to the nature of that claim. As Mr Martin pointed out, the Court of Appeal in Auckland Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (NZ) Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 372 set out three categories or classes of constructive dismissal in employment. That the categories may not necessarily be closed is not for decision in this case, a...

3. Crozier - Succession to Molly Crozier [2023] Chief Judge's MB 531 (2023 CJ 531) [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...209) at [15]. 2023 Chief Judge's MB 539 into account the nature and gravity of the matter at issue.5 This means that the Applicants must establish on the balance of probabilities that there was a mistake or omission. [15] The Court of Appeal has recently confirmed that the power under s 44(1) of the Act falls into two parts:6 The first is an evaluative decision as to whether the order made was “erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of...

4. [2023] NZEmpC 199 Breen v Prime Resources Company Ltd [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...makes plain, there was no suggestion at the time that Mr Chung was deliberately being disingenuous. [16] The distinction between personal grievances and disputes, and the remedial routes available in respect of each, was dealt with by the Court of Appeal in Auckland College of Education v Hagg. While the Court was concerned with s 27(1)(b) of the Employment Contracts Act 1991, that provision was in materially the same terms as s 103(3) in the current Act.7 The Court made the foll...

5. Complaints Assessment Committee 403 v Elia [2017] NZREADT 7 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...the Registrar of the Authority within 20 working days of the date of this decision. [29] Pursuant to s 113 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, the Tribunal draws the parties’ attention to s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008, which sets out appeal rights. Any appeal must be filed in the High Court within 20 working days of the date on which the Tribunal’s decision is served. The procedure to be followed is set out in part 20 of the High Court Rules. _______________...

6. Cross - Horowhenua 9A6B1 (2016) 355 Aotea MB 199 (355 AOT 199) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...Act that a transfer of Māori freehold land was unlawful, as it did not conform to the provisions of the Act. They argued that in those circumstances ownership of the land should therefore revert back to the transferor. [21] In dismissing the appeal, the Court referred to the decision of the High Court in Warin v Registrar-General of Land and noted: 14 [69] The Warin decision measures the relationship between the LTA and Māori land legislation, and traverses well-known preced...

7. Senadipathi & Xavier v Sampang [2015] NZIACDT 43 (20 April 2015) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...complainant’s application, as the salary was below the industry standard and Mr Sampang had not made genuine attempts to recruit New Zealand citizens or residents. [5.7] As a result, the complainant was in New Zealand unlawfully, and had 42 days to lodge an appeal, if she chose to do so. She continued to work for Mr Sampang, and he told 3 her that was not a problem. On 16 May 2013, Mr Sampang submitted a request for a work visa for the complainant under section 61 of the...

8. Knuckey v Telford - Wahapakapaka 7A Block (2021) 431 Aotea MB 119 (431 AOT 119) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...http://www.brookersonline.co.nz/databases/modus/lawpart/statutes/link?id=ACT-NZL-PUB-Y.1993-4%7eBDY%7ePT.12%7eSG.!116%7eS.222%7eSS.5&si=57359&sid=67avr24ejjd7jpa6unngkjxu5h3c2ovv&hli=1&sp=statutes 431 Aotea MB 124 [19] The leading case regarding trustee appointments is the Court of Appeal judgment Clarke v Karaitiana.8 In that decision, at paras [51] and [52], the Court underscores both the importance of the views of trust beneficiaries as well as the Court having the...

9. [2011] NZEmpC 62 Greymouth Dental Centre v Bowkett [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...v Duncan, 5 where 4 [2010] NZEmpC 24. 5 [2010] NZEmpC 36. the Court reiterated the important role that Calderbank offers play and cited Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly 6 where the Court of Appeal referred to the need for “steely responses” 7 by the Courts where claimants do not beat a Calderbank offer, as this was in the broader public interest. He also cited Gates v Air New Zealand Ltd 8 to the same effect. He submitte...

10. QAB v PAC, OAD and NAE LCRO 93/2015, 94/2015 and 142/2016 [pdf, 105 KB]

    ...recite the facts giving rise to these complaints in any detail as they are well known to the parties. 2 [3] In brief, Mr QAB and Mr MAF were convicted and sentenced to periods of imprisonment but their convictions and sentences were quashed on appeal due to a miscarriage of justice. The miscarriage had arisen because the prosecuting lawyer (Ms NAE) did not present the full record of Judge [X]’s sentencing indication to the trial Judge. Judge [X] had noted that evidence was...