Search Results

1. DD v KI [2023] NZDT 42 (14 February 2023).pdf [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...entitlement. Result [15] DD is entitled to be paid $6,000.00 as the value of his vehicle, and $1,725.00 for storage, a total of $7,725.00. He is not entitled to recover his Disputes Tribunal filing fee, as that is not a cost that is ordinarily permitted by the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. Referee: C Hawes Date: 14 February 2023 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the prop...

2. [2010] NZEmpC 38 Timata Hou Ltd v Service and Food Workers Union & Anor [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...current and intended strike action will affect the public interest. It is in the interests of the community generally that persons detained compulsorily for reasons of public safety and for treatment be restrained only to the extent that the law permits. The ascertainment of this can only be determined properly by the maintenance of current and accurate records which will be compromised by the strike action. Further, refusing to provide what is known as “sleepover” coverage o...

3. M1 Ltd v M2 Ltd & FS [2023] NZDT 739 (15 December 2023) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...current claim previously been decided by the Tribunal? b. If so, is there any particular factor that can set aside that decision? Has the current claim previously been decided by the Tribunal? 5. Under the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 the Tribunal is permitted to undertake re-hearings or revisit the award for the purposes of correction or interpretation. However, the issues which are not under review cannot be re-heard and are res judicata, meaning those things decided cannot be decided...

4. [2016] NZEmpC 110 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...records sought will make no real difference in the proceeding; (b) the Court should not exercise its discretion to make such an order before first determining the application for disclosure against the plaintiff for his personal tax records and permitting that disclosure to take place; (c) PRI would have to request records which it does not have and which disclose the private tax affairs of other employees; (d) it is not in the interests of justice for the Court to make such...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 46 Rutherford Street Kindergarten v Chilton [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...issue between the parties”. 8 Eastern Bay Independent Industrial Workers Union Inc v Pederson Industries Limited, ARC 20/08, 10 June 2009, C J Colgan at [9]. [20] While that regulation permits the consideration of Calderbank offers and whether they resolve some or all of the issues between the parties, in the present case I do not consider it appropriate for the Court to assess Calderbank offers made to settle the matter...

6. [2009] NZEmpC AC 29/09 Ogilvy NZ Ltd v Whitten [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...award of costs but not on an indemnity basis because the Authority did not consider counsel’s hourly rate was entirely recoverable in the Authority. The Authority stated this was not a comment on counsel’s involvement but the Authority had not permitted recovery of costs at such a level. It stated: “There has been previous reference to roughly half of counsel’s charge out rate as recoverable in this forum as an upper bound” (para [6]). It found that the plaintiff’s ap...

7. Ballance Agri-Nutrients Limited [pdf, 887 KB]

   ...Rate (NLLR). This is highlighted in Policy 2 as well as Schedule B. Table 1 in Schedule B provides the defined maximum NLLR values for different river freshwater 3 management units, below which farmers will be able to operate as a permitted activity. (c) While the Appellant supports the use of NLLR, it is noted that output NLLR values for farms will likely change with updated versions of Overseer. This has the potential to impact where a farm falls within the proposed...

8. [2010] NZEmpC 50 Assured Financial Peace Ltd & Prosper With Us Ltd v Pais [pdf, 29 KB]

   ...defendant was an employee. Although the Authority did not make the orders claimed by the companies (outlined above) which were the matters before it, it appears to have made a compliance order against them which was not sought by Mr Pais. Section 138 permits the Authority to make compliance orders of its own motion but there appears to have been no indication to the parties that the Authority was so inclined or any opportunity to be heard. [16] On 17 March 2010 the Authority made...

9. DR v BU Ltd [2022] NZDT 199 (22 November 2022) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...land. I am also satisfied that the authority applies, whether unauthorised cars are found to be parked in the carpark due to monitoring by the respondent or as a result of a call to the respondent by the owner of the carpark or the person who holds a permit to park there. 8. The applicants raised several arguments that there were inconsistencies about the way the tow was conducted and the information they were given after the tow. While this may have been the case, this did not negate...

10. [2010] NZEmpC 95 Musa v Whanganui DHB & Anor [pdf, 21 KB]

    ...employment agreement by publishing additional remarks that were derogatory of him. [6] The remedies claimed by Mr Musa include penalties for each of the breaches as provided for in the statute (which penalties he says should be paid to him as permitted by law in recognition of the harm suffered by him), a compliance order requiring the second defendant to comply with the original terms of the settlement agreement of 26 March 2008, and costs. [7] The penalties claimed are civil pen...