Search Results

1. [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...

2. CAC 20002 v Chand [2014] NZREADT 102 [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...transparency. Prospective purchasers are entitled to be aware of the identity of those they are dealing with. Are they dealing with the owner or someone related to the owner or is this a normal, commercial arm’s length transaction? Such disclosure permits the prospective purchaser to assess the weight to be given to representations made by the salesperson. It assists the prospective purchaser in making an informed decision as to the way they conduct themselves in negotiations.”...

3. Waters v Alpine Energy Ltd (Discovery) [2014] NZHRRT 8 [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...effectively with the matter before it, whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law. (2) The Tribunal may take evidence on oath, and for that purpose any member or officer of the Tribunal may administer an oath. (3) The Tribunal may permit a person appearing as a witness before it to give evidence by tendering a written statement and, if the Tribunal thinks fit, verifying it by oath. (4) Subject to subsections (1) to (3), the Evidence Act 2006 shall apply to the Tribunal...

4. [2019] NZEmpC 121 Shaw v Bay Of Plenty District Health Board [pdf, 544 KB]

   ...from 2010 to 2015. On the basis of the evidence which is now before the Court, it is apparent that included in the evidence considered by the Authority was information which may well have been relevant to the disadvantage grievance had it been permitted to proceed. Substantive determination [58] For the purposes of its substantive determination, the Authority considered the background circumstances in considerable detail. [59] The Authority began with a description of Ms Shaw�...

5. Langhorne v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACA 11 [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...1978. [74] With respect to the suggestion that the cessation was wrong or unlawful, this is, at best, speculative. The Corporation endeavoured to consider the possible reasons for cessation but ultimately took an interpretation of events that permitted the reinstatement of the appellant’s ERC from the date it was ceased (refer to the Corporation’s memorandum 19/10/07). [75] Nevertheless, the fact remains that the appellant did not challenge the calculation and cessation in...

6. LCRO 186/2019 ZU v FD (15 June 2021) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...right of review and state the period within which an application for review must be lodged: 2. The respondent has not taken the point; and 3. Section 200 of the Act requires a review to be conducted with as little formality and technicality as permitted and Mr ZU should not be denied the right to apply for a review because of the unusual process adopted by the Committee. Review An indemnity or an acknowledgement? [47] Throughout the Standards Committee discussion and decision,...

7. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Valli and Hughes [2014] NZHRRT 58 [pdf, 333 KB]

   ...following remedies: (a) a declaration that the action of the defendant is an interference with the privacy of an individual: (b) an order restraining the defendant from continuing or repeating the interference, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the interference, or conduct of any similar kind specified in the order: (c) damages in accordance with section 88: (d) an order that the defendant perform any...

8. E35 Peter Kensington - Landscape - EIC - Council [pdf, 2 MB]

   ...Design Requirements in Annexure C, which shall include the following: (i) Make-good and treatment of the wharf surface with a consistent concrete surface similar to that of the 1585 18 Halsey Wharf Extension, suitable for activities permitted by the Auckland Unitary Plan; (ii) Any retention of existing or any proposed services; and (iii) Any public realm element, for example furniture, lighting and handrails. Public realm elements, including any permanent structur...

9. LCRO 2/2019 RCN and OCN as Trustees v MA, JS, LB and GD (27 May 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...majority decide in favour of a certain course of action. We recommend that trustees’ decisions be recorded and signed by all trustees. If a trustee is temporarily unavailable through illness or overseas travel, that trustee may, if the circumstances permit, appoint an attorney to act in his or her stead. [26] The Committee noted that “no advice appears to have been sought by the complainants regarding the Construction Contracts Act when the Trust was formed”.5 It further noted...

10. Walters - Horahora 1B4A2D1 (2011) 22 Taitokerau MB 209 (22 TTK 209) [pdf, 205 KB]

    ...Council decision in Man O’ War Bay Station v Auckland City Council [2001] 2 NZLR 26, arguing that the threshold of ―the gate being ‗thrown open‘ to the public‖ has not been met because the sandspit blocks were specifically excluded from being permitted access across the then 1A4D to the roadway. [64] Counsel for the Climo Estate with respect to the issue of proprietary estoppel argued that no expectation was given by her client or anyone else to NCIL that they would have the...