Search Results

1. [2019] NZEmpC 49 Mathews v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [pdf, 449 KB]

   ...Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia who stated that the general position is that “[w]hile Parliament uses the English language the word “may” in a statute means “may”. Windeyer J also observed, in some circumstances, the permitted power must be exercised, and that will be dictated by “the particular context of words and ... circumstances in which the power is to be exercised – so that in those events the word “may” means “must””. [84]...

2. [2016] NZEmpC 83 Savage v Capital Coast DHB [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...populated with the names of permanent staff automatically. [71] Permanent staff may have applied for and been granted leave in accordance with the Board’s policies; if so, the roster will reflect this. In addition, staff may ask and be permitted to swap, alter or add to their assigned shifts. [72] Where as a result of these processes there were gaps in the roster, a team leader or Mr Cate would fill them if possible by using permanent staff; if this was not possible casual...

3. [2016] NZEmpC 39 Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board Costs [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...revisit an award of costs that it has previously made to “vary or alter” that award (again on grounds of reasonableness), a liberal interpretation of that provision also may allow for postponement or instalments. Indeed, even if the Court is not permitted to make a postponed order or one by instalments immediately, subcl (2) would allow, in any event, a party to apply to the Court, after the making of a single immediately-payable order, to vary this order in the way that the de...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 112 Vince Roberts Electrical v Carroll [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...made within a specified time, failing which the plaintiff’s challenge would be stayed and the plaintiff would be barred from defending the cross-challenge. The payments were not made at all and the plaintiff’s challenge was stayed. It was not permitted to participate in the subsequent hearing of the cross-challenge. In any event a major part of the cross-challenge was to be the claim that Mr Roberts personally, rather than the company, was Mr Carroll’s employer....

5. LCRO 23/2021 FY v NU (10 October 2023) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...and did that undertaking prevent him from paying both his fees, and the accounts that he had concluded there was mutual agreement he was to pay? [153] In my view, the undertaking provided by Mr FY demanded of him that he do what the undertaking permitted him to do. It did not provide authority to Mr FY to settle accounts (or pay fees) in accordance with his understanding of the broader agreement that had been reached by his client. [154] As mentioned earlier, in determining what the w...

6. National Standards Committee v Shand [2019] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 3.2 MB]

   ...affidavits filed in the High Court. [104] The Committee’s response to that assertion is that the doctrine of legal professional privilege is distinct from duties of confidence such as r 8 and 8.1 which have an independent basis. Those rules do not permit disclosure of confidential information obtained during a client relationship, to the public at large. [105] We find that the rules are clear and accept the Committee’s submission in that regard. It is not necessary to further...

7. [2020] NZEmpC 61 Leota v Parcel Express Ltd [pdf, 465 KB]

   ...to wear, the sort of vehicle he was to drive and restrictions on its signage, the extent to which he was to be contactable by the company, the type of insurance cover he was to have and with whom and for how much, the amount of time off he was permitted to have and when, and the extent of the company’s involvement in any leave arrangements. It also emerged in evidence that Parcel Express audited Mr Leota’s mileage, although Mr Leota was unaware that it was doing so. It remaine...

8. Crosswell v Auckland City Council [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...[18] Later in October 2005, the claimants also observed that water was entering the lounge at the base of the vented chimney. An inspection of the ridge capping revealed a separation of the butynol capping from the plywood substrate which permitted water to penetrate the house. [19] On 29 November 2005, repairs again were needed and a further replacement to the sheet metal capping was required for the chimney. Scaffolding was then hired so that access could be obtained....

9. ZA v YB LCRO 164/2013 Recusal (31 August 2016) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...general approach that judicial disqualification is not warranted on the basis of adverse rulings or decisions is also justified by appropriate concerns about proper judicial administration. There is huge potential for abuse if recusal applications were permitted to be predicated on a party’s subjective perceptions regarding a judge’s ruling. [101] We know of no common law jurisdiction which accepts that a judge’s adverse rulings are disqualifying per se. The problem is rather wh...

10. Minute of the Environment Court (dated 17 March 2017) [pdf, 1.2 MB]

    ...information and any breach would be a matter for the Court rather than a private Pickering v Christchurch City Council [2016] NZEnvC 46. 17 matter between parties. [46] A matter of particular concern for the Court is that while the Direction only permitted disclosure of the Sensitive Information to persons who had entered into the Confidentiality Agreement, Clause 4 of that agreement purported to authorise disclosure of the information to a wider group of persons described as &q...