Search Results

1. RF v CN LCRO 254/2012 (3 November 2016) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...to be served with enforcement papers at the settlement conference. (d) Ms CN breached s 161 of the Act by recommencing enforcement action in relation to outstanding fees following the release of the Standards Committee decision, before the time permitted for filing a review had 6 expired. He also submits that drafting bankruptcy proceedings and taking other steps to enforce the costs awarded against him by the District Court is in breach of s 161. (e) He should not have to...

2. [2018] NZEmpC 86 Ports of Auckland Ltd v Maritime Union of NZ Inc [pdf, 374 KB]

   ...“cancellation” are unnecessary words to have included unless, from the outset, the actual roster already specifies the times of work. The proviso also recognises that whereas 24 hours’ notice is desirable, where shorter notice is only possible, that is permitted because the company is only required to “endeavour” to provide the 24 hours minimum notice. This is further recognised in the Hours of Work Policy, where an audit and review process is to operate in instances where...

3. LCRO 185/2017 DO v DP (18 March 2019) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...purpose; and (b) the practice obtains the client’s instruction or authority for the transfer or payment, and retains that instruction or authority (if in writing) or a written record of it; and (c) payments to a third party are made in a form that permits the crediting of the money only to the account of the intended payee; and (d) transfers to another client are by way of trust journal entry [85] Section 110 has been considered by the Courts. In Heslop v Cousins,23 the High Co...

4. Justice Matters - issue 15 - July 2019 [pdf, 3.5 MB]

   ...Act 1991. The Court largely deals with appeals about the contents of regional and district plans and appeals arising out of applications for resource consents. Consent applications may be for land use; a subdivision; a coastal, water or discharge permit; or a combination of these. The Court usually sits with a Judge and one or more of its Environment Commissioners. The Commissioners have expertise in many areas including planning and engineering. The Commissioners also conduct mediati...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 54 Hamon v Coromandel Independent Living Trust [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...[62] These heads also included an assertion in evidence that Mr Noonan accused Ms Hamon of “double dipping” into TEC funding. There was no evidence that Mr Noonan prevented Ms Hamon from pursuing her activities with Wahine Ora. She was permitted to, and did, deliver two Poutama courses while employed by CILT. No evidence, which would have been available from Wahine Ora students or other third parties, was called by Ms Hamon to corroborate this assertion. Mr Noonan did not...

6. TC vs Mr & Mrs SH LCRO 234/2014 [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...trifling. They go to the heart of a client’s right to understand the work that is being done, and its consequences for them. The breaches involve the failure to provide basic and essential information. [162] In addition, the legislation does not permit a Standards Committee or this Office to reduce a lawyer’s fees without first making a finding of unsatisfactory conduct. It is appropriate in this case for the fees to be reduced. [163] Accordingly, the findings of unsatisfacto...

7. v2.3-Induction-guide-for-legal-aid-providers-April-2017.pdf [pdf, 714 KB]

   ...evidence are large and complex and there’s a substantial volume of documentary evidence. The Crown must also be represented by at least 2 counsel. The junior counsel takes a secondary role under the supervision of the lead provider and isn’t permitted to undertake the substantive hearing even if the lead provider is unavailable. Junior counsel can be of a lower listing approval category than the lead provider and will be remunerated up to their own approval category (not the proce...

8. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 1 v Campion [2019] NZLCDT 20 [pdf, 582 KB]

   ...indicated that the only evidence it would accept from Mr Campion was the oral evidence which had been given by him on 12 March and transcribed, and in respect of which he was to be cross-examined at the 14 May hearing. No further evidence was permitted to be filed by the practitioner because of his flagrant disregard of previous directions. [19] Because the hearing had to resume with two changes of members, the Tribunal determined that it should start the matter afresh on the basis...

9. [2021] NZEmpC 117 Zara’s Turkish Ltd (in liquidation) v Kocaturk [pdf, 378 KB]

   ...Mr and Mrs Kokcu, and Mr Akbaba, all said that the previous arrangements were revised when Mr Kocatürk arrived in New Zealand and not before. [37] What was not disputed is that an amendment to Mr Kocatürk’s visa was made in February 2010 permitting him to work for Zara’s Turkish. By that time, he had been in the country for several months. [38] What happened from October 2009 until mid-March 2010 is a significant part of Mr Kocatürk’s challenge. Mr and Mrs Kokcu sai...

10. [2013] NZEmpC 39 Rittson-Thomas t/a Totara Hills Farm v Davidson [pdf, 150 KB]

    ...only justified if an employer’s business was failing. The Labour Court’s conclusion was, therefore, that the dismissal was unjustified. [50] The Court of Appeal in GN Hale held against the Labour Court’s assertion that redundancies are only permitted in failing businesses. Importantly for present purposes, the Court of Appeal made it clear that it was not for the Court (or now the Authority) to substitute its decision for that of the employer on these questions. So, in prac...