Search Results

1. AVS Operating Guidelines for District Courts [pdf, 817 KB]

   ...Public access Unless the presiding judicial officer directs otherwise, members of the public may be present in the courtroom during the remote appearance by a participant in custody. Members of the public, family members or partners etc are not permitted in the instruction suite. If the family or victim would like to be seen, or alternatively would not like to be seen by the remote participant, they can sit in the specified seating in the public gallery. The allocated seating m...

2. 2021-07-23 ORC - Legal submissions regarding scope for relief sought by WISE Response.pdf [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...for that resource is unlikely to be "on" the proposed change (unless the change is incidental or consequential, as discussed below). 18 If the effect of regarding a submission as being "on" a proposed change would be to permit a planning instrument to be appreciably amended without real opportunity for participation by those potentially affected, that will be a "powerful consideration" against finding that the submission was truly "on" the...

3. [2008] NZEmpC AC 14/08 Board of Trustees of Te Kura Kaupapa Motuhake O Tawhiuau v Edmonds [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...made some notes but there was no suggestion otherwise that this was so. Finally, it is significant that Ms Hurst’s subsequent letter to Mr Hope, confirming their discussions and providing further detail, does not refer expressly to a failure to permit representation as might have been expected if this had been an issue raised in the early discussion. [14] For these reasons I conclude that Ms Hurst more probably did not tell Mr Hope in so many words that one of Mr Edmond...

4. EMPC Old dogs new tricks conference presentation [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...remarkable change from the position less than three decades ago is that any intervention in the statutory collective bargaining process can only be undertaken by mediators or, at most, members of the Employment Relations Authority. Judges are not permitted to be exposed to, let alone participate in, the cut and thrust of collective bargaining or in either making recommendations about its outcome or fixing terms and conditions of employment. The judicial role is strictly limited to...

5. [2007] NZEmpC WC 22/07 Tawhiwhirangi v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...need for the defendant to justify his actions including the errors already identified. [61] As have this Court, the Employment Relations Authority and its predecessors in numerous cases, I too consider that the most just course of action is now to permit the defendant’s investigative process to continue and not to order its permanent stay as the plaintiff seeks. I am satisfied that despite errors having been identified by the plaintiff in this proceeding, a compliance order is not...

6. [2020] NZEmpC 51 O’Boyle v McCue [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...of whether the statement of claim should be amended as sought. [63] Once a case has been set down, as here, there is a threshold for the amendment of a pleading. It is necessary to “surmount the three formidable hurdles” of showing that permitting amendment would be in the interests of justice; would not significantly prejudice other parties; and would not cause significant delay: Elders Pastoral Ltd v Marr.20 It is the first of these factors that is particularly relevant her...

7. ENV-2016-AKL-000184 Smith and Caughey Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.6 MB]

   ...Precinct with all necessary changes to relevant issues objectives policies and methods so as to achieve the same or similar outcome as the Hearings Panel’s recommendation; (b) Provide for demolition of all buildings in the QSV Precinct as a permitted or controlled activity; (c) Alternatively, exclude the appellant’s buildings from the pre-1940 building demolition control; (d) Amend assessment criteria for the pre-1940 building demolition control so as to exclude:...

8. [2014] NZEmpC 174 Workforce Development Ltd v Hill [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...various Corrections’ officers and, ultimately, it was the Prison Manager (who has statutory responsibility for ensuring the safety of prisons, including prisoner safety) who was tasked with reaching a concluded view as to whether access should be permitted. In any event, Ms Knowles made it clear that her focus was on safety and security, and not on educational outcomes. WDL was the employer, with employment obligations, not Corrections. While it may be possible to challenge per...

9. Dotcom v Crown Law Office (Inherent Powers) [2018] NZHRRT 36 [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...Tribunal’s order at [255.2]. It was a difference which could possibly be narrowed were the Tribunal to correct what it had decided or intended. In such circumstances consideration could be given to the making of an application analogous to that permitted by High Court Rules, r 11.10 (correction of accidental slip or omission). Because the issue was first raised by the Tribunal after the morning adjournment counsel were understandably circumspect in their initial reaction to wha...

10. IHC New Zealand v Attorney-General (Strike-Out Application) [2020] NZHRRT 47 [pdf, 248 KB]

    ...failure by the initial complaint to the Commission to raise the range of issues IHC now wishes to litigate before the Tribunal and from its failure to make its allegations against the proper defendants. The complaint procedure in HRA, Part 3 does not permit the scope of a claim to expand over time. [12] This submission attaches particular significance to the role of HRA, s 81(4) in the dispute resolution procedures set out in Part 3 of the Act. This section provides that before gatheri...