Search Results

1. LCRO 25/2024 PG v WA (29 May 2024) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...this complaint on behalf of someone else. That person must sign below to give permission for you to make this complaint on their behalf. [17] Section 11 was not signed by Mr JF. The applicant stated that she was “… unable or rather not permitted to gain personal access to [Mr JF]”, who remained remanded in custody, and that she had “… a verbal instruction from [Mr JF] by phone to act on his behalf in this matter”. 4 [18] On 20 July 2023, the Committee’s Profess...

2. Satnam Singh v Shane Singh and Scorpion Liquor [2015] NZHRRT 8 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...English at the Unitech Institute of Technology in Auckland. At all material times he lived in Mt Roskill, Auckland. He currently holds a work visa valid until November 2015 and lives in Christchurch. [13] Needing an income to pay rent and being permitted by his student visa to work 20 hours per week, the plaintiff circulated his CV among several businesses in the Mt Roskill district. It was in this context he met Shane Singh who offered him (the plaintiff) a position. The plaintiff a...

3. [2019] NZEnvC 160 Hawthenden Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 21 MB]

   ...those ON Ls have been identified as outstanding in the ARPS. [66] ORC and Allenby present similar arguments for why Man O'War should be distinguished on the matter of what account, if any, should be given to what the PDP allows for by way of permitted activities when determining whether land is "sufficiently natural" to be an ONL or ONF. Rob Roy Residents and QLDC present similar counter­ arguments. ORC's submissions [67] As noted, ORC's interest is in an...

4. [2018] NZEmpC 43 A Labour Inspector v Smiths City Group Ltd [pdf, 503 KB]

   ...turn on a factual inquiry as to what is required by an employer of an employee and whether that constitutes “work” for the purposes of s 6. [33] In rejecting a contention that no part of the time spent by Mr Dickson while asleep, or while permitted to sleep, was work for the purposes of s 6 the Court said:10 The issue requires a broader consideration of all the facts and we do that under three headings: (a) Constraints on the employee. (b) Responsibilities of the employee...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 194 Enterprise Motor Group (New Lynn) Ltd v A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...orders applied to EMG’s salespeople. The objection [30] The objection to the improvement notice was about the method it required EMG to use to calculate compliance with the Act and minimum wage orders. The company considered the Act permitted it to apply its wage calculation across the whole month, provided that in each week or fortnight (depending on the applicable minimum wage order) each hour worked was paid for at not less than the required minimum rate. The Insp...

6. [2024] NZEmpC 157 Hall v Fire and Emergency New Zealand [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...Order (No 3) 2021. 17 COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Amendment Order (No 4) 2021. [38] On 28 February 2022, FENZ implemented a vaccinations policy which provided that “Only fully vaccinated personnel and visitors will be permitted to enter Fire and Emergency premises from 28 February” unless particular exceptions applied. This policy was separate to the Vaccinations Order and was in force until 23 May 2022. The policy had the effect of excluding Ms Hal...

7. [2010] NZEmpc 98 Marshment v Sheppard Industries Ltd [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...Marshment applied for a very urgent hearing of his challenge and although the Court was in a position to grant this, the company’s concessions about the effect of the Authority’s injunctive order (as recorded in a minute issued on 7 July 2010) permitted the plaintiff to travel to the sales exhibition and return to New Zealand before the hearing of this challenge. [3] The Employment Relations Authority has scheduled its investigation meeting to begin on 5 and 6 August 2010 althou...

8. Reid v Accident Compensation Corporation [2023] NZACC 194 [pdf, 254 KB]

   ...Corporation’s decision of 22 May 2020. [17] On 27 August 2020, review proceedings were held. On 25 September 2020, the Reviewer dismissed the review, noting that noted that the case involved the Corporation making a decision that specifically permitted it to apply its discretion, and that, in such cases, the Reviewer’s power was limited. The Reviewer found that there was no error of law or principle, irrelevant considerations were not taken into account, relevant consideration...

9. 20240924-Marine-and-Coastal-Area-Takutai-Moana-Customary-Marine-Title-Amendment-Bill.pdf [pdf, 372 KB]

   ...applies. 14.2. A conservation permission right by which CMT holders can grant or withhold permission on any grounds for consideration of an application or proposal for a conservation activity. 14.3. Rights in relation to marine mammal watching permits. 14.4. A right for CMT holders to have their views considered if the Minister of Conservation is proposing to prepare, issue, change, review, or revoke a New Zealand coastal policy statement.20 14.5. A right to create a planning docume...

10. LCRO 8/2022 QQ v LW (8 October 2024) [pdf, 227 KB]

    ...the s 174/CAL proceeding only.”21 [44] “Notwithstanding r 10.2, he was self-represented on at least one of the matters (and was not apparently represented in relation to any negotiations of which there had not been any for 12 months) so I was permitted to write to him directly”22 [45] “Even so, because the letter by necessity traversed matters on which Mr LW had been involved, it was critical that Mr LW be copied – and he was;”23 [46] “… However, all of the content of...