Search Results

1. [2013] NZEmpC 165 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...represented at the hearing of the applications affecting them. The applications were set down for argument. PFC and PRI were given the opportunity, if they wished, to present their positions on the non- party disclosure applications by way of filing affidavits. Mr J K Goodall, counsel for the non-parties, filed a memorandum prior to the hearing on 9 July 2013 indicating that the non-parties would not be filing any affidavits nor appearing at the hearing and would abide the decisio...

2. [2020] NZEnvC 107 Whangarei District Council v Sustainable Solvents Group Limited [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...Court at Whangarei: (a) Payment of $10,000 to the Whangarei District Council; and (b) The sum of $2,000 to the Northland Regional Council. C: The said orders include costs in respect to this application. This concludes the proceedings on this file which will now be closed. REASONS Introduction [1] The Court has made three enforcement orders in this matter. The first was an enforcement order made on 2 February 2017 against the First, Second and Third Respondents following prose...

3. DIJ v New Zealand Police [2024] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 372 KB]

   ...PERSONS OTHER THAN THE PARTIES (2) PERMANENT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION AND IDENTIFYING DETAILS OF PLAINTIFF AND THE TRANSCRIPT REFERRED TO IN THIS DECISION (3) PERMANENT ORDER PREVENTING SEARCH OF THE TRIBUNAL FILE WITHOUT LEAVE OF THE TRIBUNAL OR OF THE CHAIRPERSON REDACTED DECISION OF TRIBUNAL1 1 This decision is to be cited as DIJ v New Zealand Police [2024] NZHRRT 22. Note publication restrictions. IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2...

4. [2025] NZEmpC 114 VXO v Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...not breach cl 27 of the collective agreement.5 [67] The Authority subsequently ordered the plaintiff to pay the NDHB the sum of $18,000 as costs.6 The plaintiff has challenged the Authority’s determinations [68] By the time the plaintiff filed his challenges in the Employment Court, he was acting for himself (with a support person in Court). That brought with it some 5 The substantive determination, above n 1, at [188], [190] and [191]. 6 The costs determination, above n 1...

5. Holmes v Ministry of Social Development [2012] NZHRRT 19 [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...within the prescribed statutory time limit and if not, the nature of the remedy to be granted. [2] In the interests of clarity the two requests will be addressed separately. While the proceedings were consolidated, this was only to allow evidence filed in one of the proceedings to be treated as having been filed also in the other. The objective was to 2 achieve a single hearing on a single body of evidence. Each of the proceedings, however, retained their distinct identity. Th...

6. Proactive-release-Better-Outcomes-for-Victims-Work-Programme_FINAL.pdf [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   ...rather than signify a shift in direction. Strengthening the legal framework to recognise and respond to litigation abuse 65 Finally, I seek Cabinet’s agreement to amend legislation to provide the Courts with greater power to restrain a party from filing family-related applications (including interlocutory applications) or responses to applications that are abusive in nature. I N C O N F I D E N C E I N C O N F I D E N C E 12 66 Current legislative settings allow the...

7. [2007] NZEmpC WC 26A/07 Nimon & Sons Ltd v Buckley [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...interest on some of the remedies awarded. [3] Reflecting that result, I expressed the preliminary view that costs should lie where they fall but left it open to either party to seek an award of costs if so minded. Ms Kennedy has now filed a memorandum seeking an award of costs to the defendant. In response, Ms Brown has filed a memorandum submitting that no order for costs should be made. [4] While Ms Kennedy’s submissions are lengthy and detailed, they make no menti...

8. [2007] NZEmpC AC 35/07 Raymond v Designlink Ltd t/a Rodney Wayne Hairdressing Whangaparaoa & Pipes [pdf, 19 KB]

   ...file and serve, no later than 14 days before today’s hearing, affidavit evidence of their financial and other relevant circumstances and I allowed Ms Raymond a period of seven days before today to do likewise. No affidavits have been filed by Mr and Mrs Pipes and therefore, not surprisingly, Ms Raymond has not been obliged to respond. [3] Mr Harrison, appearing for Mr and Mrs Pipes, has indicated that he was very hopeful that today’s hearing might be obviated by an ag...

9. [2011] NZEmpC 173 NZ Fire Service Commission v NZ Professional Firefighters Union [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...plaintiffs who would then simply discontinue after a long delay should bear at least some additional costs 8 At [29]. consequences. He therefore submitted that costs should be moderate and the filing fee should not be awarded. [12] Whilst I accept the force of Mr Davenport‟s submissions based on the AC Nielsen case, the delays in the eventual discontinuance have no doubt caused the defendants to incur costs which otherwise wo...

10. [2010] NZEmpC 157 Ingham (Labour Inspector) v August Models & Talent Ltd [pdf, 18 KB]

    ...calculated at the rate of 4.8 per cent per annum from 10 December 2009 to the date of payment; • to pay penalties totalling $2,250 for failure to pay minimum wages and for failure to produce time and wage records; and • to pay $140 for Authority filing fees. [6] The Authority’s determination, which I am satisfied was served on the defendant, set out the consequences to it of breach of the Authority’s compliance order. [7] The maximum fine for breach of a s 137 compliance...