Search Results

1. [2021] NZREADT 55 – Lammas v Real Estate Agents Authority (6 December 2021) [pdf, 340 KB]

   ...Tribunal). The covering email stated that $30,000 was overdue and the failure to pay would result in legal proceedings. [21] The Lammases replied by email on the same day. They were referring correspondence from the Freears to the new agency. They requested a copy of the recording taken by Ms Freear of Mr Lammas while he was standing at the front door of his private property. 5 [22] Mr Freear responded by email on 24 December 2019. He said the matter was not with the n...

2. BO v XTT [2012] NZIACDT 31 (28 June 2012) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...professional duties as a licensed immigration adviser. [2] The professional engagement arose when Mr BO needed a variation to his work permit, as he wanted to work for a new employer. [3] He says Mr XTT met with him briefly, and gave him a blank form to sign. Mr XTT failed to tell him that he could not take up work with a new employer until Immigration New Zealand processed the application. Mr XTT delayed filing the application, and did not keep in touch with him. [4] Mr BO took...

3. February Legal Aid News [pdf, 525 KB]

   ...employer’s name or type of benefit)  The application must include whether the customer has control of a trust and/or interest in property (please include property address and market value) If you have any questions in relation to any of this information please do not hesitate to contact the legal aid office 0800 2 LEGAL AID. Repayment of legal aid for domestic violence proceedings An applicant for a protection order in domestic violence proceedings is exempt from the requirem...

4. EL v FO [2022] NZDT 8 (28 April 2022) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...the above issues, as I have found the cake was iced in accordance with instructions, and as EL took possession of the cake, I find no refund is justified. Referee: K. Edwards Date: 28 April 2022 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a...

5. [2024] NZEmpC 116 Osborne v Callaghan Innovation [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...something else. He was asked what serious wrongdoing was being alleged. The General Manager confirmed that, in accordance with the protected disclosure policy, his confidentiality would be maintained. [21] The same day Mr Osborne provided the requested clarification, including describing the nature of the matter he wanted to raise as grossly improper mismanagement. He attributed this conduct to the manager who was responsible for the redundancy that affected him. In providing th...

6. P and R v EQC and MIS [2024] CEIT-2023-0014 [pdf, 331 KB]

   ...hearing defences which might resolve applications in their entirety as initial issues. Doing so fulfils the Tribunal’s purpose of providing fair, speedy, flexible, and cost-effective dispute resolution.1 2) Subsequently, the parties have jointly requested that this matter should be referred to the High Court as a question of law under s53 of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019 (the Act). S53 has been used once before when the former chair referred a question in...

7. [2008] NZEmpC AC 24/08 Panovski v Marine Trimmers and All Awnings 2004 Ltd [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...was discussed, Mr Steers did not expressly state that any improvement was required, nor was any warning or a caution given about Mr Panovski’s workmanship. [7] A number of other jobs were also discussed at the meeting. They were not jobs performed solely by Mr Panovski. Mr Steers says that he raised these as examples of the problems the defendant was experiencing and why it could not increase Mr Panovski’s pay. Mr Steers claims that they also discussed the time Mr Panovski...

8. [2008] NZEmpC AC 8/08 Taylor & Anor v von Tunzelman [pdf, 39 KB]

   ...$40,000, this to be paid by Mr Taylor as employer. [9] In the Authority’s “good faith” report to the Court it has reached the following conclusions: • Any criticism of the plaintiffs’ conduct could only relate to the Authority’s request for the provision of documents about commissions. • Not only did Mr Taylor fail to supply the material that he had agreed to but there was no explanation for that failure or request to have further time or be excused from the obliga...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 122 Reunited Employees Assoc Inc v Nelmac Ltd [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...communicative, and that it frustrated the bargaining process.14 [13] The Authority decided that REA’s position, about what was agreed in facilitation, was not arguable.15 [14] The Authority criticised REA’s behaviour as sometimes taking the form of distortion, blatantly denying things had occurred when they had or asserting that things had occurred when the evidence showed they had not. It made trenchant comments about occasions when the union’s impugned behaviour took...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 98 Ovation NZ Ltd v The NZ Meat Workers and Related Trades Union [pdf, 343 KB]

    ...1 Airways Corp of New Zealand Ltd v Postles [2002] 1 ERNZ 71 (CA). 2 Ovation New Zealand Ltd v The New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union Inc [2018] NZEmpC 92. and that compliance of those requests would be given by 10 August 2018. I reserved leave for the parties to apply promptly with regard to any disclosure issues. [7] Mutual informal disclosure then took place. Counsel for the plaintiffs sought disclosure by email sent on