Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 23 Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd v Whitehead [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...reserved with the parties having 28 days to make submissions if the issue could not be resolved between them. Well after the expiry of that time limit, counsel for the plaintiff (“Metallic”) (respondent in the proceedings before the Authority) filed a memorandum in support of a claim for costs. This memorandum was filed on 4 March 2009. Upon receipt of the memorandum Mr Whitehead’s solicitors advised the Authority that they no longer had instructions. [3] Follow...

2. Alternative Dispute Resolution: general civil cases [pdf, 675 KB]

   ...Interviews 7 2.3 In-depth Interviews with Disputants 10 3 The Use and Provision of ADR in New Zealand 13 3.1 ADR Techniques 13 3.2 Types of Disputes Amenable to ADR 14 3.3 Use and Trends in ADR Take-Up 16 3.4 Provision of ADR Services 17 3.5 A Profile of ADR Practitioners 21 3.6 Experience and Training in ADR 22 3.7 Delivering ADR Services 24 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of ADR 25 4.1 Benefits of ADR 25 4.2 Disadvantages of ADR 30 5 ADR Impact on Settlement, Cost and Time 33...

3. Alternative Dispute Resolution: General Civil Cases [pdf, 675 KB]

   ...Interviews 7 2.3 In-depth Interviews with Disputants 10 3 The Use and Provision of ADR in New Zealand 13 3.1 ADR Techniques 13 3.2 Types of Disputes Amenable to ADR 14 3.3 Use and Trends in ADR Take-Up 16 3.4 Provision of ADR Services 17 3.5 A Profile of ADR Practitioners 21 3.6 Experience and Training in ADR 22 3.7 Delivering ADR Services 24 4 Advantages and Disadvantages of ADR 25 4.1 Benefits of ADR 25 4.2 Disadvantages of ADR 30 5 ADR Impact on Settlement, Cost and Time 33...

4. [2011] NZEmpC 126 EBIIWU v Norske Skog Tasman Ltd [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...Counsel: Mr L Yukich, advocate for the plaintiff Ms K Dunn, counsel for the plaintiff Judgment: 5 October 2011 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B S TRAVIS [1] This chambers hearing was convened to deal with an application Mr Yukich filed on behalf of the plaintiff union seeking a direction from the Court allowing the plaintiff to produce affidavit evidence of historical bargaining over the issue of long service leave. The defendant opposed the request for leave to file fu...

5. [2017] NZEmpC 140 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...of an application to exclude evidence AND IN THE MATTER of applications for leave to cross-examine deponents BETWEEN JOHN MATSUOKA Plaintiff AND LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND Defendant Hearing: On the papers filed on 29 September and 2, 6, 11, 24, 27 and 31 October, 2 November 2017 Appearances: R Harrison QC and M O'Brien, counsel for plaintiff C Meechan QC and D Eriksen, counsel for defendant G Pollak, counsel for non-parties Zamb...

6. IHC New Zealand v Ministry of Education (Non-Party Access No. 2) [2014] NZHRRT 20 [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...Plaintiff Ms M Coleman and Mr SJ Humphrey for First and Second Defendants DATE OF DECISION: 16 May 2014 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL GRANTING NON-PARTY ACCESS TO STATEMENT OF CLAIM AND STATEMENT OF REPLY Background [1] These proceedings were filed on 27 September 2012. For reasons set out in the Minutes dated 22 November 2012, 15 February 2013, 24 May 2013, 28 June 2013 and 4 July 2013, little progress has been made. [2] The plaintiff has since engaged a new instructing solici...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 216 Narayan v Telecom NZ Ltd [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...in the new year. [2] On 30 September 2013, by telephone directions conference, Mr Narayan indicated that he intended to also challenge the Authority’s costs determination, which had recently been issued. Accordingly, I set a timetable for the filing of an amended statement of claim and the filing of an amended statement of defence. In addition, a timetable was set for the preparation, exchanging and filing of a bundle of agreed documents....

8. Yiasoumi v Attorney-General [2017] NZHRRT 12 [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...to Hutt Valley Hospital. At 10.20pm that officer took two photographs of Mr Yiasoumi’s facial injuries. For this he used his Police issue iPhone. In entirely innocent circumstances those photographs were not subsequently attached to the Police file. 1 [This decision is to be cited as: Yiasoumi v Attorney-General [2017] NZHRRT 12.] 2 [2] Because the Police doubted the credibility of Mr Yiasoumi’s account of the inci...

9. WQ v Emberson [2019] NZIACDT 28 (8 May 2019) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...changes made to the immigration policy meant he was not eligible for automatic selection. Ms Emberson admits the delays. [2] A further complaint against Ms Emberson by the regulatory body concerns her failure to make available the complainant’s file for inspection. As to this, she says it was her employer’s file and not hers and she had left the firm’s employment by the time inspection was sought. The issue here for the Tribunal is whether an adviser could be in breach of t...

10. LCRO 84/2020 WF v BP (11 June 2020) [pdf, 159 KB]

    ...The Standards Committee delivered its decision on 23 March 2020. [3] Mr WF lodged his application to review the Committee’s decision on 14 May 2020. [4] The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act) states that review applications must be filed within 30 working days after a copy or notice of the determination is served on, given to or otherwise brought to the attention of the applicant 2 for review.1 In the absence of proof to the contrary, service of the Committee’s dec...