Search Results

1. [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...

2. 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...

3. Macey v Whitehead - Hauiti Marae (2008) 180 Gisborne MB 31 (180 GIS 31) [pdf, 3.1 MB]

   ...reservation. In essence, she alleged impropriety on the pat1 of several of her fellow trustees. She claimed that Maria Whitehead "falsified" minutes of a meeting held in June 2006 to improperly include reference to a trustees' resolution permitting two of the beneficiaries to undertake refurbishment work on kaumatua flats located at the marae. [2] Ms Macey further alleged that Mrs Whitehead threatened her, acted aggressively and in an intimidating fashion during a mee...

4. CM v EC LCRO 295 / 2011 (17 October 2013) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...lodged these with Australian immigration authorities. He provided his name and contact details on the forms. He did not meet the women, who were not in fact in New Zealand at the time. [13] The women’s passports contained forged New Zealand visa permits. Once this was discovered by New Zealand authorities, the Applicant was arrested and charged with two charges of dishonestly using a document, contrary to s 228(b) of the Crimes Act 1961. 4 [14] When he first appe...

5. LCRO Annual Report 2012 [pdf, 965 KB]

   ...this point are published on the LCRO’s website. Annual Report 2012 | Legal Complaints Review Officer 10 OPERATIONAL MATTERS The LCRO must conduct any review with as little formality and technicality, and as much expedition, as is permitted by: • the requirements of the Act; • a proper consideration of the review; and • the rules of natural justice. Hearings and reviews on the papers The LCRO can either consider matters in a hearing or, with the consent of t...

6. [2011] NZEmpC 28 Zhang v Sam’s Fukuyama Food Service Ltd [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...dismissed and sought reinstatement. Between the time of the dismissal and the Court hearing, the company had made structural changes to its operations. After describing the changes, the Court stated: In these circumstances it would be unjust to permit the employer to benefit from its structural changes by precluding Mr Ali’s reinstatement in employment that is an effective remedy for his unjustified dismissal. I find that although opposed by the employer’s managers and incon...

7. [2012] NZEmpC 48 Carter Holt Harvey Limited v McAuley [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...here that there is no suggestion of any of these being CHH’s reasons for engaging Mr McAuley on any of the fixed term agreements. [21] As this Court has held before, in enacting s 66 Parliament modified the previous common law position which permitted fixed term agreements to be entered into, except as constrained by other legislative requirements. Section 66 limited the circumstances in which fixed term agreements might lawfully be entered into by specifying prerequisites to t...

8. [2015] NZEmpC 41 Denyer v Peter Reynolds Mechanical Ltd t/a The Italian Job Service Centre [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...of imprisonment results in direct payment to the employee, unless the Court directs (as it has done in some cases) that the whole or part of a fine be paid to the employee. As I have said, some doubt has been expressed about whether the statute permits this. Sequestration is a relatively complex and potentially time consuming process but does result in the seizure and sale of property, which can then be applied to meeting the employer’s obligations to the employee. [4...

9. 2017 NZSSAA 039 (20 July 2017) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...Māmari Stephens. Submissions on behalf of the appellant were filed by Māmari Stephens who is an enrolled barrister and solicitor but who, at the relevant time, did not hold a practising certificate. While s 12K(8) of the Social Security Act permitted Ms Stephens to appear as an "advocate" for the appellant, under s 21 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 she was not entitled to hold herself out as "counsel" for the appellant. Accordingly the submissions h...

10. [2017] NZEnvC 179 Auckland International Airport Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 6.1 MB]

    ...(Auckland airport,) through the major information outlet for the Council (the website and Our Auckland) and through notification to the various interest groups. [45] Accordingly, in deference to Mr Berry and concerns that s 352(1)(h) may not permit non-personal service, I will dispense with service under s 2AA(2)(b) to the limited extent that the service directed under s 352(1 )(h) is required instead. I note, however, that it is difficult to see how a regulation binding councils co...