Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 113 Service and Food Workers Union & Ors v OCS Ltd [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...the phrase “redundancy entitlements” mean a single undefined redundancy entitlement, multiple undefined redundancy entitlements, or a potentially unlimited suite of redundancy entitlements? • if bargaining for redundancy entitlements is permitted, does this include bargaining for such redundancy entitlements as have been addressed specifically by the parties in their employment agreements? [26] In these circumstances of absence of legislative clarity, analysis of the proces...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 208 ABC v DEF [pdf, 315 KB]

   ...terms are final and binding on, and enforceable by, the parties, and no party may seek to bring those terms before the Authority or the Court. The issue may then be which provision of the Act should take precedence: cl 12, sch 3 of the Act which permits the exercise of a discretion with regard to non-publication, or the provisions of s 149 stating that the terms are final, binding and enforceable? The issues raised by ABC and referred to previously may also fall for consideration at...

3. Daunton v CAC 10065 & Morgan [2012] NZREADT 71 [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...advice from their lawyer. A licensee need be no more involved than, helpfully, facilitating those procedures, particularly if he or she still holds a key to the property. There was reference to clause 3.2.(2) of the sale contract, but that only permits a pre-settlement inspection entry to the property by the purchaser to confirm compliance with any agreement of the vendor to carry out work on the property and the chattels and fixtures. In any case, a perceived non-compliance of the con...

4. [2018] NZEnvC 056 Auckland Council v Auckland Council [pdf, 663 KB]

   ...your own adversary: there is no real controversy to be adjudicated and no real basis on which you can enforce any right or duty against yourself. In contractual terms, you could waive any right you may have against yourself; in tort, you could permit the tortious act and rely on the doctrine that what happens willingly does not amount to injury. [30] Having stated that, we conclude from the submissions made to us and our own research that there appears to be no clear authority for t...

5. Gardiner v Corringe - Tauwhao Te Ngare Block (2008) 93 Tauranga MB 63 (93 T 63) [pdf, 4.7 MB]

   ...to stock losses from a respondent Maori Land Trust. Judge Harvey accepted the submissions made on behalf of the trustees that issues relating to moveable chattels such as stock do not fall within the ambit of section 18(1)(d). He thought that to permit the applicant's claims to advance would be to place a meaning on the phrase "relates to", as used in section 18(1)( d), that travels beyond the plain and ordinary meaning of the words. Defendants' Arguments [16]...

6. Reedy v Atkins - Waitangi A1 A1 (2019) 76 Tākitimu MB 54 (76 TKT 54) [pdf, 362 KB]

   ...interest in the land had a hui on 11 August 2004 to express their opposition. They do not support the gifting and appear to be dismayed at Mr Ashby’s actions. They are entitled to their viewpoint. Those opposing the applications were also permitted to make their views known to the judge. They did so but he was not persuaded by their arguments. He then exercised his discretion in favour of Mr Ashby. We do not detect any error in the judge’s approach when disposing of these ap...

7. LCRO 193/2017 AA v BB and CC (29 November 2019) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...to how the events had relevance to the conduct complaints he was advancing. [135] To the extent that Mr AA was able to usefully reference particular events relevant to the conduct issues, the concern he expressed was that Mr BB and Ms CC had permitted and encouraged a witness to produce evidence to the Court in circumstances where it was manifestly apparent to them that the evidence was false and misleading. Mr AA concluded his submissions at hearing, with argument that he believe...

8. [2020] NZSSAA 4 (28 April 2020) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...ordinary residence in Singapore he must have met the requirements the Supreme Court identified; it could not happen by default. Key elements in the Supreme Court’s reasoning we must apply to XXXX’s circumstances were: (a) The Act does not permit residence in two countries simultaneously.24 (b) The meaning of the words “ordinarily resident” mean “a place in which someone resides”, “home for the time being”.25 (c) The necessary degree of permanence or habituality...

9. UY v Bunbury LCRO 17 / 2012 (4 March 2013) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...considerable thought as to whether or not this matter (and others referred to in this decision) should be the subject of charges before the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. However, I have determined in this case that the maximum fine permitted by the Law Practitioners Act 1982 should be imposed as Dr Bunbury’s failure to consider his obligations to [Company A] and Mr UY in these matters is serious. [76] In addition, Dr Bunbury is censured in relation to this con...

10. George v ACC [2012] NZACA 13 [pdf, 78 KB]

    ...was an earner and by this means avoid the effect of the Giltrap decision, now upheld by the High Court in Vandy. It was quite wrong, he submitted, that a decision in 1981 assessed on its merits by the appellant’s solicitor at the time, could be permitted a review 29 years later. None of the usual mitigating factors applied, and this was a case of a decision 9 ultimately accepted at the time on its merits, now being challenged for an ancillary purpose. [46] Regarding prej...