Search Results

1. [2021] NZEmpC 19 Restaurant Brands Ltd v Unite Inc [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...“proper particulars (permitted) and probing for evidence (not permitted)”.8 Details of the case also are not required that would be oppressive or an unreasonable burden on the plaintiff.9 [19] Both parties point to the dicta of the Court of Appeal in Price Waterhouse v Fortex Group Ltd, that the pleading must state the issues and inform the opposing party of the case to be met, emphasising that:10 As so often is the case in procedural matters, in the end a common-sense and b...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 208 Hayne v ASG [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...publication in a defamation context, where a statement is “published” if it is communicated to a third party. While publication of suppressed 18 Re Victim X [2003] 3 NZLR 220 (HC) at [45]; upheld on appeal, Re Victim X [2003] 3 NZLR 220 (CA). 19 Solicitor-General v Smith [2004] 2 NZLR 540 (HC). 20 Slater v Police HC Auckland CRI-2010-404-379, 10 May 2011. Leave to appeal was subsequently granted, but the appeal does not...

3. Appleby Building Ltd v C Alva LCRO 117 / 2009 (12 October 2009) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...is privileged this may amount to such a good reason. [8] The fact that a solicitor may not claim privilege in respect of a demand of him or her to produce evidence in response to a professional complaint was determined by the English Court of Appeal in Parry-Jones v Law Society (1969) 1 Ch 1; [1966] 1 All ER 177. It is of note that the privilege in this case belongs to Mr Andrew’s client (Helmsdale). Lawyer-client privilege gives the client a right to refuse to produce those docu...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 80 Tomo v Checkmate Precision Cutting [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...the threshold test in r 5.45(1) has been met and, if so, how the Court’s discretion should be exercised under r 5.45(2). [11] In exercising its broad discretion the Court must have regard to the overall justice of the case. As the Court of Appeal observed in McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd: 4 [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 for s...

5. GC v OSC LCRO 113 / 2011 (2 November 2011) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...concerning GE. The Committee found that “this refusal was in all the circumstances capable of being considered a device to enable (the Practitioner) to take instructions from [GE] in relation to his (locally known to be more complex and lucrative appeal) matter instead.” [13] The Standards Committee was of the view that Practitioner‟s conduct was capable of reaching the threshold of „misconduct‟ under Section 7 (1)(a)(i) of the Act, and for this reason decided that the...

6. LCRO 145/2015 and 148/2015 YK v GS and GS v YK [pdf, 407 KB]

   ...Ltd [2009] NZSC 72, [2010] 1 NZLR 35. 4 Standards Committee decision at [66]. 5 It is not uncommon for tribunals, be it a Standards Committee, a Coroner, a District Court Judge or indeed a High Court Judge to have their decision subject to appeal or some form of challenge. If on every occasion that such a challenge was made, a Judge or Tribunal member was required to recuse him or herself or itself, then the administration of justice in all its forms would become impossibly compli...

7. BORA Taxation (Neutralising Base Erosions and Profit Shifting) Bill [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...liable if it does not. 18. The section heading at s 143 refers to absolute liability, but because subsection (2) provides what is essentially a defence, we therefore consider this to be a strict liability offence. In doing so, we note the Court of Appeal has confirmed that it is “a universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted”.4 19. Strict liability offences...

8. National Standards Committee 1 v Peters [2020] NZLCDT 34 (27 October 2020) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...the decision, out of an abundance of caution, in order to preserve the fair trial rights of the accused whom Mr Peters had previously represented. [3] Now that there has been a guilty plea entered in that case,1 the defendant sentenced, and the appeal rights expired, that earlier decision can be released concurrently with the present decision. The Standards Committee Submissions [4] The Standards Committee submits that the seriousness of this misconduct ought to be met by a short...

9. [2015] NZEmpC 53 O’Hagan v Waitomo Adventures Ltd [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...incurred actual costs of $16,974. [4] I turn to consider whether costs of that magnitude were reasonable. In relation to this issue Mr O’Hagan submits that the defendant has failed to provide details of the costs incurred. However, the Court of Appeal has made it clear that it is not mandatory for counsel to provide details of time involved and charge out rates when seeking costs. In Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd it was observed that: 3 Obviously this kind of information may h...

10. [2010] NZEmpC 52 Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley & Anor [pdf, 27 KB]

    ...for no other purposes: (b) if copies of any documents have been made available by any party,— (i) those copies must be returned to that party within 28 clear days after the conclusion of the proceedings or after the conclusion of any related appeal, whichever is the later; and (ii) copies of any of those copies must not be retained by the party to whom those copies were made available: (c) the information contained in any document so disclosed but not used in evidence in the pro...