Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 51 Health and Body Clinic Ltd Ors v Zhao [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...and on behalf of the third plaintiff No appearance for the defendant Judgment: 23 May 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M E PERKINS [1] Mr Murray Arnesen and Mrs Lynette Arnesen, the second and third plaintiffs in this proceeding, have filed a challenge against a costs determination 1 of the Employment Relations Authority dated 19 November 2010. [2] They were not originally parties before the Authority in these proceedings, which alleged a personal grievance by the defend...

2. [2010] NZEmpC 18 C v Air Nelson Ltd [pdf, 38 KB]

   ...the other employees. [7] Clause 12 of Schedule 3 to the Act governs the orders that may be made and provides: 12 Power to prohibit publication (1) In any proceedings the Court may order that all or any part of any evidence given or pleadings filed or the name of any party or witness or other person not be published, and any such order may be subject to such conditions as the Court thinks fit. (2) Where proceedings are resolved by the Court making a consent order as to the terms o...

3. [2009] NZEmpC AC 26/09 Merchant v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 35 KB]

   ...Judgment: 25 June 2009 COSTS JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A A COUCH [1] I gave my substantive judgment in this matter on 17 December 2008. I concluded by encouraging the parties to agree costs if possible or, if they were unable to do so, directed that they file memoranda. They have now filed memoranda. [2] Clause 19(1) of Schedule 3 to the Employment Relations Act 2000 confers on the Court a broad discretion to make orders as to costs but, as with all such discretions, it must be exerci...

4. [2013] NZEmpC 54 Checkmate Precision Cutting Tools Ltd v Tomo [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN CHECKMATE PRECISION CUTTING TOOLS LIMITED Plaintiff AND MAPU TOMO Defendant Hearing: 22 June 2012 and 12 March 2013 (Heard at Auckland) By submissions filed on 15 and 19 March 2013 Counsel: Sam Wimsett, counsel for defendant Mark Beech and Elizabeth Smith, counsel for plaintiff Judgment: 10 April 2013 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS [1] The plaintiff seeks a declaration f...

5. Ransfield v Whaanga - Town Section 90 Mahia and Town Section 91 Mahia (2012) 16 Takitimu MB 130 (16 TKT 130) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...Solicitors: Langley Twigg Solicitors, PO Box 446, Napier Attention: Cara Bennett P Nee Harland, PO Box 8025, Havelock North Attention: Peter Nee Harland 16 Tākitimu MB 131 The Applications [1] The Ihaka Whaanga Whānau Trust have filed the following applications: i. For determination of ownership of a dwelling situated on Mahia Township Sections 90 and 91 in terms of s 18(1)(a) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (the Act); ii. To recover damages for trespass and inj...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 128 Huang v Li [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...conclusions reached in the Employment Court, namely the forging of documents and for working in paid employment (unrelated to the parties in this case) without a Work Permit. c) The applicant has already advised the Court that he is unable to pay the filing fee for his application for a rehearing, and has further advised the applicant on a number of occasions that he would not be paying any costs awarded against him. d) The applicant has had costs of $2,438 awarded against him...

7. Sionepulu v Downer and Police (Costs) [2012] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...and the Tribunal was, in effect, to send his wife “the bill”. Ms Sionepulu was not in the hearing room at the time this stance was taken in somewhat defiant terms. The Tribunal nevertheless made provision in the timetable for Ms Sionepulu to file submissions in opposition to the costs applications. It will be clear from the preceding paragraphs that no such submissions have been filed. [16] The Tribunal has been left with the task of addressing the applications by Downer and by th...

8. [2014] NZEmpC 16 Gapuzan v Pratt Whitney Air New Zealand Services second interlocutory [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...defendant Judgment: 12 February 2014 SECOND INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A A COUCH [1] The history of this matter is summarised in my first interlocutory judgment dated 29 August 2013.1 [2] The plaintiff took that opportunity by filing a third amended statement of claim on 17 September 2013. The defendant very quickly responded with an application to strike out parts of that statement. It is that application to strike out which is decided in this judgment....

9. BC v YT LCRO 215 / 2010 (1 April 2011) [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...Similarly, although it is not directly relevant at this point, he advised that by “corruption”, he means circumstances in which a regulatory body does not function in the way it should, and likened it to the “corruption” of a computer file. Procedure [14] In his letter of 26 October 2010 which accompanied the application for review, the Applicant advised that he wished to be heard in person in support of his application. He also advised that he would be making submissio...

10. Halesowen v Kelso LCRO 175-176 / 2009 (18 November 2009) [pdf, 91 KB]

    ...and that this was inconsistent with the Committee’s duty of impartiality. The legal advice obtained by the Committee is privileged to the Committee. The submissions on behalf of Ms Halesowen in this regard are speculative. I have had the entire file of the Standards Committee made available to me including the opinion referred to. There is nothing in the file or in the opinion which suggests that this concern of the applicant is well founded. Relevance of Mäori Land Court decisio...