Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 71 Sawyer v The Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington [pdf, 347 KB]

   ...and deliberately” isolated. She sought to support this claim by saying that her workplace 19 8I Corp v Marino [2017] NZEmpC 69, (2017) 14 NZELR 606. was relocated and that she was not permitted to return to the faculty for seminars or collegiality. She said she was compelled to take sick leave when she was not ill. Further complaints were made about the investigation, including a claim that it ceased to be an inquiry int...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 82 Barry v C I Builders Ltd [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...Ireland did not accept the proposition, the way in which this issue appears to have been approached by CIB has a number of similarities with trial and probationary periods. The difficulty is that trial periods and probationary periods are expressly permitted under the Act. Both are constrained in terms of the circumstances in which they can be used and the criteria which apply. [67] The independent contractor model is not an alternative which enables hirers to assess, by other m...

3. Ringwood v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 44 [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...and the first respondent have placed reliance on the vendors warranty at clause 6.2(5)(d) of the August 2000 sale and purchase agreement between the Urlichs and the first purchasers. Effectively this is a warranty that building work done or permitted to be done by the vendor complies with the Building Code. As the house clearly did not meet the weathertightness performance standard of the code, the purchasers would have had a remedy in contract against the Urlichs. [69] It...

4. LCRO 187/2017 MO v FP (13 December 2019) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...LJ in Hardwick Game Farm v Suffolk Agricultural Poultry Producers Assn Ltd:7 In giving its reasons for judgment [a Court] is not composing a general lecture upon a legal topic: it is setting out as succinctly as the time available for preparation permits, those propositions of law which it considers are correct, and which are essential steps in the decision it has reached in the particular case. It is not obliged to state an answer to the arguments against the propositions of law which...

5. AODT-Court-Operational-Policy-update-2023-v2.pdf [pdf, 367 KB]

   ...discuss arrangements. The team leader will take responsibility for matters during absences. • An AODT Court lawyer who has recurrent or ongoing scheduling conflicts will be removed from the AODT Court roster. • AODT Court lawyers are not permitted to swap their rostered sessions with other lawyers including other AODT Court lawyers. Any changes must be discussed with and managed via the team leader. • If required and if called upon to do so by the team leader, any AODT Court...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 209 McLennan v New Zealand Post Ltd [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...10 At [22]. 11 At [23]. 12 At [24]. 13 At [23]. phone was still in his hand and he indicated his intention to go to the side of the road to stop safely to check his phone. He said he had been unaware that the law did not permit a driver of a stationary vehicle to use a cell phone. 14 [17] Following the meeting, further investigations were carried out by Mr Butchart. These were followed by another meeting at which Mr McLennan was informed of the employer�€...

7. [2011] NZCA 595 CA439/2011 New Zealand Professional Firefighters Union v New Zealand Fire Service Commission [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...or all of these sections applied to the proceedings before the Court, the Chief Judge did not consider that these provisions should be interpreted so as to bar a remedy in this case. He said that it would run counter to the scheme of the Act to permit a union (or an employer in respect of a lockout) to act egregiously in bad faith and in breach of its solemn commitments to act in good faith in respect of the bargaining and/or strike or lockout action. The Chief Judge referred to a...

8. [2007] NZEmpC AC 45/07 Wyatt v Simpson Grierson Parternship [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...1999 performance review also arose on 1 February 2001, and the matter falls to be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 rather than the Employment Contracts Act 1991. Accordingly, if Mr Wyatt is to be permitted to pursue his personal grievance, I must be satisfied that it was raised within 90 days of 1 February 2001, that is by 2 May 2001 or that it was raised later and Simpson Grierson consented to it being raised later. [55] I consid...

9. Sawyer v Victoria University of Wellington (Strike Out) [2024] NZHRRT 9 [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...strike out must be used sparingly and if a defect in a claim can be cured, an amendment of the statement of claim is preferred to striking out the claim.24 Where a defect in a statement of claim can be cured by amendment, a court will generally permit such an amendment rather than striking the pleading out. In Marshall Futures Ltd v Marshall Tipping J said:25 It seems to me that in a case where the Plaintiff can undoubtedly start again, being within time, the Court should only str...

10. Wihone - Panguru A16 & others (2016) 123 Taitokerau MB 199 (123 TTK 199) [pdf, 447 KB]

    ...of support for the application among the owners having regard to the nature and importance of the matter and having regard to the principles in the Preamble, s 2 and s 17 of the Act. There is no room in our opinion for an approach which would permit the encumbering of Māori land without the owners’ knowledge or consent. [23] Accordingly, the applicants need to demonstrate that there is a sufficient degree of support for the water easement among the owners of each of Panguru A16...