Search Results

1. Waitangi Tribunal - The new approach revisited [pdf, 586 KB]

   ...maintains its focus on its inquiry jurisdiction, which is to make findings on claims against the Crown. 4.6 In order that all parties have notice of the extent of cross-examination sought, and the focus of the cross-examination, cross-examination is permitted only by leave. All parties must seek leave to cross-examine prior to the hearing at which the witness appears. Each Tribunal will set its own deadline for the filing of such applications. Annexure 1: the standard new approach Page 18...

2. [2009] NZEmpC AC 20/09 Allen v Transpacific Industries Group Ltd t/a Medismart Ltd [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...that he was paid for the time between when he clocked in and when he clocked out of work. There was no, or only minimal, external supervision of his job performance and no systematic oversight of the hours claimed by him. Although Mr Allen was permitted two 20- minute paid refreshment breaks and a 1 half-hour unpaid meal break, when and how these were taken were left largely to him. The employer deducted automatically half an hour’s pay each day from the amounts calculated betw...

3. Proactive release - Security Information in Proceedings Legislation Bill.pdf [pdf, 2.2 MB]

   ...considered within this broader suite of counter-terrorism proposals (the Terrorism Suppression (Control Orders) Bill, [CBC-19-MIN-0039] and Strengthening New Zealand’s Counter-Terrorism Legislation [CAB-19-MIN-0612] refer, noting neither proposal will permit NSI to be used as evidence in a substantive criminal trial). The current general law is inadequate 11. Our current settings provide insufficient assurance to the Crown that NSI can be adequately protected if it needs to be used in cour...

4. LCRO Annual Report 2009 [pdf, 520 KB]

   ...against a former client A company complained about the conduct of a lawyer in seeking to recover an outstanding debt from it for the lawyer’s client. It complained that the lawyer had acted for it some time previously and should not now be permitted to act against the company. Secondly, it stated that the lawyer ought not have issued a statutory demand in light of the fact that the debt was disputed. This review concerned conduct which occurred prior to 1 August 2008...

5. [2011] NZEmpC 12 Unite Union Inc and Sherman v SkyCity Auckland Ltd [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...of view. However, in the ebb and flow of industrial action, steps taken to weaken the opposition‟s bargaining position in order to strengthen ones own, providing they fall within the definition of lawful strikes and lockouts, are expressly permitted by the Act. If strike action or lockout action can be reduced in its impact by the other side‟s response, that may weaken the party taking the industrial action and persuade it to return to the bargaining table, rather than cont...

6. [2011] NZEmpC 152 Blackmore v Honick Properties Ltd [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...this question turns on whether, at the time the individual employment agreement containing the trial period provisions was entered into, Mr Blackmore had or had not been employed previously by HPL. If he had been, then the legislation does not permit the parties to have entered into a valid trial period. [36] This was one of the questions considered in the first (and only other) judgment on s 67A that has come before the Court, Smith v Stokes Valley Pharmacy (2009) Ltd. 3 This...

7. LCRO 18/2021 MB v RP and ND (14 October 2022) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...lawyer in a particular situation, the distinction between contentious and non-contentious matters can provide a useful approach.19 [71] If in particular circumstances the lawyer concerned considers the prohibition in r 6.1 does not apply, r 6.1.1 permits the lawyer to “act for more than 1 party in respect of the same transaction or matter where the prior informed consent of all parties concerned is obtained”. Informed consent must be given without influence, and independent from...

8. 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...

9. 2024] NZEmpC 195 Smalley v Hamilton Hindin Greene Ltd [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...Court's power to make an order under s 178(5) would be exercised on a potentially narrower basis than in the circumstances applicable to a challenge under s 179. A more general right of challenge under s 179 (especially by hearing de novo) permits new evidence or issues to be considered by the Court whereas an application under s 178(5) focuses on the correctness of the Authority's determination which, in turn, will encompass the potentially narrower range of evidence or...

10. LCRO 55/2024 EFH and KFH v SP and NR (15 October 2024) [pdf, 239 KB]

    ...is desirable in the public interest that this decision be published in a form that does not directly identify the parties or others involved in the matter and otherwise in accordance with the LCRO Publication Guidelines. 23 [119] The NZLS is permitted to provide a copy of this decision to the first committee. DATED this 15TH day of October 2024 _________________________ FR Goldsmith Legal Complaints Review Officer In accordance with s 213 of Act, copies of this decision...