Search Results

1. [2023] NZEmpC 227 Pilgrim v Attorney-General [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...had earlier argued that the Court could not determine whether a person was an employee without at the same time identifying who their employer was. I did not accept that submission for reasons set out in the substantive judgment.7 The Court of Appeal has now indicated the approach taken was not incorrect in the circumstances.8 [12] The Gloriavale defendants submit that if (as I have already found) the plaintiffs were employees, the employer was Hopeful Christian in his capacity as...

2. Auckland Standards Committee v Patel [2014] NZLCDT 67 [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...1825 at [36]. 7 (d) An order for the payment of the Costs of the Law Society in the usual way. [19] The Tribunal has discussed with counsel the orders that the Committee has sought. It has considered the comments of the English Court of Appeal in Bolton v Law Society4. The Court held at page 491 – 492: “If a solicitor is not shown to have acted dishonestly, but is shown have fallen below the required standards of integrity, probity and trustworthiness, his lapse is le...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 42 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...of the statute by courts can be said to be at a developmental stage. The plaintiff says the particular issues arising in this case are unique, despite other litigation between associated parties in this Court, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, so that it is important to the development of the law generally that the case is able to proceed. Further, the plaintiff says that in an area of law on one side of which there are “vulnerable employees”, it is important to allow s...

4. AAR and AAS v ZZI Ltd [2010] NZDT 14 (21 July 2010) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...[13] A mutual mistake exists where there has been a different erroneous belief about some matter related to the contract (that is, where neither party has correctly appreciated the position). In a case very similar to this one, an early Court of Appeal decision took the view that where a purchaser and a vendor were mistaken as to the amount of land being sold that it could be said that one party was mistaken as to the amount of land being sold, whilst the other party was mistaken as...

5. Tweeddale v Pearson [pdf, 81 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: Tweeddale v Pearson File No: TRI 2008-101-000067/ DBH 02946 Court: WHT Adjudicator: R Pitchforth Date of Decision: 1 December 2009 Background This is a decision dealing with claims made against: First and second respondents: Mr Pearson and Ms Tucker as previous owners Third respondent: Palmerston North City Council Fourth respondent: Mr Humphries as the alleged project manager and director of Humphries Construction Ltd, the construction company Fif

6. Te-Au-Reka-and-Family-Court-Rules-Consultation-Paper-270923-v2.pdf [pdf, 387 KB]

   ...currently access in hard copy or email form. Changes to the Rules are likely to be needed, including to ensure that such access lasts for the appropriate amount of time. For example, we propose: o Parties can access their information until any appeal period has expired. o Lawyers would also be able to access information until any appeal period has expired. Te Au Reka will allow for situations where a party changes their lawyer, enabling access to the relevant information...

7. [2021] NZEmpC 13 Edwards v Recreational Services Ltd [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...High Court Rules 2016, r 5.45(3)(b). discretion regard must be had to the overall justice of the case and the respective interests of both parties need to be carefully weighed up. That balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal in AS McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd as follows:11 [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. CAC 20004 v Clark & Clark [2013] NZREADT 88 [pdf, 28 KB]

   ...defendant and also fine each defendant $3,000 payable to the Registrar of the Authority at Wellington within 15 working days from the date of this decision. [23] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________...

9. Judicial appointments expression of interest form [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...indicate, by ticking the boxes, the extent of your experience, both civil and criminal, in the following: Court Civil Criminal Details, including number of appearances Supreme Court ______________________________________ Court of Appeal ______________________________________ Court Civil Criminal Details, including total years’ experience High Court Appellant work ______________________________________ High Court ________...

10. Fa'asavala v Letalu [2014] NZIACDT 91 (17 September 2014) [pdf, 174 KB]

    ...course where he repeatedly filed unmeritorious requests, then made complaints on the same grounds. The responses of Immigration New Zealand and the Minister made it clear why his actions were inappropriate. He persisted. [2.3] He then lodged an appeal out of time and he did not refund the filing fee to the complainant. [3] The Tribunal found Mr Letalu was incompetent, he did not commence his engagement in accordance with the Code of Conduct 2010 (breaching clause 1.5), he breached the...