Search Results

1. [2023] NZEmpC 224 Medina Trading Ltd T/A Hotel Debrett v Hunter [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...statement of claim has been filed, directions can be made, and steps taken by Ms Hunter, about the nature and scope of the hearing. [41] Alternatively, if the parties wish for the matter to be heard as a de novo challenge, the Court can make directions permitting that under s 182(3) of the Act, but the entire matter will then be before the Court. Costs [42] Costs are reserved. In the event the parties are unable to agree on costs, Ms Hunter will have 14 days from the date of this...

2. Gupta v Dhar [2016] NZIACDT 65 (4 October 2016) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...potentially provided them intending that Immigration New Zealand would believe they related to the correct position of employment. [7.4] In respect of the residence application, the application said the complainant had never been refused a visa or permit. In fact, since lodging the EOI Immigration New Zealand twice declined work visa applications. Accordingly, the information in the application was wrong, and Mr Dhar knew or ought to have known that. [7.5] Accordingly, Mr Dhar all...

3. Pue v Kīngi - Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Whenua Tōpu Trust (2015) 335 Aotea MB 1 (335 AOT 1) [pdf, 389 KB]

   ...made on 22 December 2005 in Chambers reducing the number of trustees by two and appointing, together with the remaining trustees, the persons nominated at the general meeting as trustees by way of replacement. I also indicated that any party was permitted to apply for a rehearing within 28 days. 19 Application for enforcement of obligations of trust [17] On 2 February 2006 Rata Pue filed an application for a rehearing regarding the appointment of replacement trustees. 20...

4. Horne v Anaru - Pukehina M Sec. 2A, M Section 2B No.2 and M2D Aggregated (2015) 123 Waiariki MB 40 (123 WAR 40) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...The first is reference to nominations for trustees coming from “whānau”. This broadening of the ability to move and second resolutions, which is effectively what is done when a nomination is put forward, may then lead to the practice of permitting non-owners to vote at a general meeting. In my experience, owners have long decried attempts by non-owners to attend, speak at, and move resolutions in general meetings, let alone purporting to vote. [29] There are many examples...

5. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v Telecom NZ 3760 [2013] NZCOP 14 [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...categories of documents is relevant in this case. To be sure, s 122L(3), which provides that “[t]he Tribunal may determine its own procedure for determining an application that is dealt with on the 5 papers, subject to any regulations”, permits some degree of procedural flexibility. Even so, in the circumstances of this case, s 122L(3) does not assist the account holder. If the letter is a challenge notice, it was filed out of time. The Tribunal should not consider a chall...

6. Robinson v CAC 20006 & Wagner [2014] NZREADT 57 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...about Mr Rawnsley providing the complainant with authority to sign a listing agreement on his behalf; nor could that be inferred. The agency could not list and market the property on the signature of one owner alone; the mediation agreement did not permit this. Nor is this otherwise permissible. An agent must have the written authority of all owners in order to market and sell a property. [42] In the circumstances of this case, it is submitted for the Authority that the licensee sh...

7. [2015] NZEmpC 208 Caffe Coffee (NZ) Ltd v Farrimond interlocutory [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...Chief Judge Colgan said this on the matter of jurisdiction: 3 [75] I am satisfied that the Court is empowered to require disclosure and inspection of relevant documents on conditions that are not set out expressly in the Regulations. Reg 6(2)(b) permits this. It is the final empowering provision in a hierarchy that starts with express statutory provisions in the Act or Regulations, moves in the absence of such expressed powers to the High Court Rules and finally, in the absence...

8. [2023] NZEmpC 69 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...judicial review by the Court. The application to strike out therefore succeeds on that basis. [44] In any event, Mr Halse has submitted that the grounds for review are based on alleged errors of law and errors of fact. Section 184 does not permit judicial review of Authority determinations on the basis of error of law.31 [45] The position with respect to Mr Halse’s application for judicial review is on all fours with the application for judicial review he filed in the Court of...

9. [2006] NZEmpC AC 62/06 Clark v NCR (NZ) Corp [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...actual content of the duty asserted in the second cause of action is different from that asserted in the first. In the first the receiver is accused of negligence in his conduct in a number of ways. In the second the duty is said to have been not to permit the conduct of the receivership to be directed, dictated or influenced by the other defendants. In view of the way however in which the essential allegations are framed and the exact identity of the loss claimed on both causes of act...

10. Perkinson v CAC 10040 & Cooper & Le Mac [2011] NZREADT 32 [pdf, 116 KB]

    ...the sole agent’s client’s interests. 6.11 In relation to (c) above the question may be whether it was appropriate for Ms Le Mac to take steps on the transaction (including talking with the appellants) without clarity as to the role she was permitted to play on the transaction and clear communication with the appellants to that effect. 6.12 In relation to Mr Cooper, it appears the conduct in issue is that following an internal complaint by the appellants about Ms Le Mac, Mr C...