Search Results

1. [2019] NZEmpC 141 Savage v Wai Shing Ltd [pdf, 484 KB]

   ...Section 127(1) provides for interim reinstatement pending the hearing of the personal grievance, and provides in s 127(6) for variation and recision of an interim order. Were Mr Savage to be dismissed without an order of the Authority or Court permitting such a step, there would be a breach of the sub-section, and of the interim reinstatement order. If s 127 were to be read so as to allow for termination of employment by a separate process from that to which the interim re...

2. BOAC v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 50-57 [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...24 Hudsons Building and Engineering Contracts, (11 th ed, 1995) at 4.072. Page | 24 [66] Delegation is of no avail to HTC in respect of failure to perform building work in accordance with the building permit. Mr Robertson referred me to the 1979 decision of Speight J in Callaghan v Robert Ronayne Limited.26 Speight J held in that decision that the building company could not avoid liability for the building work completed by its contrac

3. Consent Order ENV-2016-AKL-000194 Highgate Business Park Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...Resource Management Act 1991 the Council will give specific consideration to those persons listed in Rule C1.13(4). 154?6 Standards The standards applicable to the zone, overlays and Auckland-wide apply in this precinct. All activities listed as permitted or restricted discretionary in Tables 154?.4.1 and 154?.4.2 Activity tables must comply with the following standards. Development within sub-precincts A and B that does not comply with clauses 154?6.1 and 154?6.2 is a discretion...

4. [2016] NZSSAA 020 (31 March 2016) [pdf, 71 KB]

   ...in good faith; (d) the beneficiary changed his position believing he was entitled to receive the money and would not have to repay it; and (e) it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor’s financial circumstances, to permit recovery. [39] Pursuant to s 86(9B) of the Act, the term “error” includes: (a) the provision of incorrect information by an officer of the Ministry; (b) an erroneous act or omission occurring during an investigation of benefit en...

5. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Sensible Sentencing Group Trust [2014] NZHRRT 21 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...Tribunal was advised that the Sensible Sentencing Group Trust (SSGT) would henceforth be represented by Ms Pender, who previously represented Victim A and Victim B. [4] The two Victims are now self-represented. The terms on which they have been permitted to appear before the Tribunal are set out at [50.1] of the decision given on 19 August 2013 and reported as Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Sensible Sentencing Group Trust (Application by Victims to be Heard) [2013] NZHRRT 26 (19...

6. CK v Auckland Standards Committee LCRO 63 / 2011 (11 October 2013) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...NZLS is that the added 7 Submissions from CL to LCRO (18 July 2013) at [10]. 6 delay and complexity of a two-step approach achieves nothing, and that the purposive interpretation ought to permit a Standards Committee to make a publication direction subject only to the Board approving it. [24] Starting with Regulation 30, which requires that Standards Committee’s publication orders must have the “prior approval” of the Bo...

7. Body Corporate 180379 v Auckland Council [2013] NZWHT Auckland 6 [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...assessor’s report is prepared. 6 Potential respondents are not notified at this stage. There is no prescribed method for the withdrawal or discontinuance of a pre-adjudication stage claim although section 141 in the transitional provisions permit claims to be withdrawn for the sole purpose of allowing claimants to be part of multi-unit complex claims. [22] The adjudication stage is more prescribed. It is managed by the Tribunal and commences when an application for ad...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 219 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...plaintiff’s current employer, and I do not consider it engages any particular concerns. [46] For these reasons I dismiss LSG’s application and determine on the evidence provided that there is no reason covered by the Rules which would not permit Kensington Swan to continue to act for Mr Matsuoka and Pacific. [47] Costs are reserved. B S Travis Judge Judgment signed at 12.45pm on 19 December 2012

9. MacGregor v Craig (Application for Witness Summonses) [2015] NZHRRT 51 [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...bank statements for 1984” than to the more appropriately particularised “monthly bank statements for the year 1984 relating to your current account with a named bank”. The former may be sufficient, the latter is not. While the English cases permit “a compendious description of several documents”, there is an important proviso, namely that the exact document must in each case be clearly indicated. See In Re Asbestos Insurance Coverage Cases at 337-338. As stated in Tajik Alum...

10. [2014] NZEmpC 187 Walker v Delta Community Support Trust [pdf, 187 KB]

    ...express waiver under s 65(1) of the EA, but only of the contents of that email and not in respect of any aspect of the legal advice given beyond what is referred to in the email. [45] A final point is that the section relied on by the defendant permits a Judge to order that the document not be disclosed in a proceeding; it does not provide for the making of an order that documents be returned and/or destroyed. Even were it to be considered that such a jurisdiction exists (for ins...