Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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...

3. [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�€...

4. [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...

5. [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...

6. 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.”...

7. 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...

8. [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�...

9. 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...

10. 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,...