Search Results

Search results for 101.

3376 items matching your search terms

  1. [2021] NZEmpC 95 Concrete Structures (NZ) Ltd v Rottier [pdf, 365 KB]

    ...Regrettably, the company had not advised him of this when sending him away. [100] At the hearing, it was argued that no payment was made because the company had a right to forfeit any wages due in the event of a termination under the IEA. [101] That was not a correct understanding of the legal position under the IEA. The right of forfeiture applied to a provision in the IEA which related to termination of employment. It did not relate to the provision that described abandonmen...

  2. [2021] NZREADT 55 – Lammas v Real Estate Agents Authority (6 December 2021) [pdf, 340 KB]

    ...should be fined a lesser amount, as the breach of r 9.11 pushed their culpability from “low” (for rr 5.1, 5.2) to “mid-level”. The appropriate penalty would be censure and a lower level of fine. Submissions from Mr and Ms Lammas [101] There are submissions (26 November 2021) from Mr Calder, on behalf of the Lammases. [102] In respect of the breach of s 127 of the Act, it is submitted that it does not make sense to describe non-compliance as either minor or a technica...

  3. LCRO 35/2021 ZN v YM and XL (16 December 2021) [pdf, 237 KB]

    ...They were not. [100] Ms YM says that request was made of her as to whether she could recommend an employment lawyer at [VHG]. Her position as a board member and employee of the firm did not disqualify her from recommending a lawyer from [VHG]. [101] It is commonplace for lawyers to occupy positions on boards of governance, whilst the lawyer’s firm provides legal advice and representation to the board. [102] To summarise the issues raised on review by Ms ZN, which relate to her...

  4. [2021] NZEmpC 199 Lawton v Steel Pencil Holdings Ltd [pdf, 415 KB]

    ...Regulatory impact statement: Strengthening Enforcement of Employment Standards (27 July 2015). 12 Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment “Strengthening enforcement of employment standards” <https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/1019-cabinet-paper-2015-strengthening- employment-standards-pdf>. 13 Brill v Labour Inspector [2017] NZCA 169, [2017] ERNZ 236 at [16]. 14 Labour Inspector v Fernando [2020] NZEmpC 66, [2020] NZERA 228 at [33]; Southern Taxis Ltd v Labour...

  5. L v EQC [2021] CEIT-2019-0036 [pdf, 411 KB]

    IN THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL CEIT-0036-2019 IN THE MATTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL ACT 2019 BETWEEN L L and N M Applicants AND EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION First Respondent AND TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED Second Respondent Date: Hearing 8 July 2021, Decision 27 August 2021. Appearances: L L and N M, the applicants E Light counsel for the first respondent No appearance f

  6. [2021] NZEmpC 129 Caddy v Vice-Chancellor, University of Auckland [pdf, 371 KB]

    ...student numbers were not yet available. The University says it was designed to test the feasibility of a draft staffing model, developed after (and in response to) the receipt of submissions and once decisions were being made about future roles. [101] I accept that the student numbers and therefore a forward work plan was not available when requested during the consultation. This was a working document for the Committee generated in response to the submissions. I do not think it was...

  7. LCRO 148/2020 PV v GY (31 May 2021) [pdf, 269 KB]

    ...advanced by Mr KQ in the course of his review hearing. [100] But an apparent synchronicity of interests does not absolve a lawyer, in circumstances such as these, from the responsibility to carefully examine whether there is potential for conflict. [101] A perceived compatibility of interests does not remotely overarch Ms PV’s case with a degree of uniqueness that would transcend or override what would commonly, in cases such as these, be considered a critical need to give careful...

  8. Cutforth v Witana - Kohewhata 27C2A (2023) 259 Taitokerau MB 111 (259 TTK 111) [pdf, 364 KB]

    ...have been signed. [100] Throughout these extended proceedings, Ms Witana continued to argue that she had not been provided with relevant trust documents. The majority trustees strongly rejected this and said she received all trust documents. [101] Even if Ms Witana did need further information, she could have taken steps to obtain it. On 21 December 2022, I directed the parties to exchange lists and complete discovery by 3 February 2023. Ms Witana did not comply with those dire...

  9. Walters v Wikiriwhi - Oruanui 9 and Others [2021] Maori Appellate Court MB 102 (2021 APPEAL 102) [pdf, 350 KB]

    2021 Māori Appellate Court MB 102 I TE KOOTI PĪRA MĀORI O AOTEAROA I TE ROHE O TE WAIARIKI In the Māori Appellate Court of New Zealand Waiariki District A20200005761 APPEAL 2020/4 WĀHANGA Under Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 MŌ TE TAKE In the matter of Oruanui 9 Block and Part Oruanui 10 Block, Lot 1 and 2 Deposited Plan 471989 I WAENGA I A Between ERIC THOMAS HIRAU WALTERS, APERAHAMA WITHERS, STEVEN KORI TREVELYA

  10. [2022] NZREADT 18 – QQ v REA NQ (7 September 2022) [pdf, 233 KB]

    ...allegations are nothing more than an absurd conspiracy theory against the backdrop of litigation between him and his former business associate. He has failed by a wide margin to put forward any basis on which to find that the Committee was wrong. 101. At the hearing before the Tribunal, the licensee was the only witness to give evidence. The questioning of the licensee by the parties or the Tribunal was confined to his knowledge of the leak in the lounge room ceiling and his disclosu...