Search Results

1. [2009] NZEmpC AC 34A/09 NZ Dairy Workers Union v Open Country Cheese Company Ltd [pdf, 37 KB]

   ...commenced by the Union on 23 September, counsel again sought urgency and agreed, in a telephone conference on 24 September, that the two matters should be heard together and that the evidence for one should be evidence for the other. Evidence was filed in the form of affidavits, with cross-examination of three deponents. Relevant legislation [14] The following sections of the Employment Relations Act were referred to by counsel in their submissions. Part 5 collective bargai...

2. [2009] NZEmpC CC 22/09 Gearry v Armourguard Security Ltd [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...determination dated 30 July 2008 (CA 110/08), the Authority dismissed that claim. Mr Gearry challenged the whole of the Authority’s determination and the matter proceeded before the Court by way of a hearing de novo. [3] As originally filed in the Court, Mr Gearry’s claim was expanded to include an allegation of unjustifiable dismissal but this was withdrawn in the course of Mr Wall’s final submissions. The claim for redundancy compensation was presented as a per...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 182 Juahm Industries Co Ltd v Isnanto [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...vessel operated by Juahm Industries Company Limited (Juahm). Initially, 53 crew members claimed unpaid wages totalling $2,687,454, albeit their statement of problem stated that this is a provisional figure. [3] When the statement of problem was filed in the Authority, Mr Dawson signed it as lawyer for each crew member. Subsequently Juahm raised an issue as to 1 Isnanto v Juahm Industries Co Ltd [2015] NZERA Christchurch 56....

4. EBT v Mudaliar [2015] NZIACDT 92 (16 October 2015) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...figure having regard to Mr Mudaliar’s previous good standing, and the loss of his livelihood. A financial penalty of $5,000 against Mr Mudaliar is appropriate after allowing for those factors. [36] Mr Mudaliar may have a substantial number of active files and it will take time to arrange for substitute licensed immigration advisers to take over the files. It is a matter of some concern that Mr Mudaliar should undertake that process without supervision; however, there is no jurisdiction...

5. Stevenson Group Ltd - Wharetoto 2C and Wharetoto 2D (2015) 334 Aotea MB 19 (334 AOT 19) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...[12] Counsel further submits that there is no evidence to corroborate the assertion that Pure 100 is the intended purchaser of Lochinver Station. That said, counsel conceded this point at the 5 March hearing given the presence of Ms Horton who had filed an affidavit 334 Aotea MB 22 regarding the sale and purchase agreement, and the notice from the OIO concerning consent to purchase Lochinver Station. However counsel maintained that the failure to produce the sale and purchase...

6. Foster v Wood - Taupo No.23 B Section 1 (2015) 108 Taitokerau MB 43 (108 TTK 43) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...Respondent Hearing: 31 July 2015 (Heard at Whangarei) Judgment: 31 July 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M P ARMSTRONG 108 Taitokerau MB 44 Introduction [1] An application has been filed by Owen Murray Foster seeking confirmation of an alienation of the Taupo No.23 B Section 1 block (“the block”) as per s 151 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (“the Act”). [2] The owners of the block are Brian Foster, Owen...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 135 Catering Masters NZ Ltd v Anand [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...disbursements). [32] The defendant seeks costs in relation to the challenge and in the Authority. The parties are encouraged to agree costs if possible. Otherwise they can be the subject of an exchange of memoranda, with the defendant to file and serve any submissions within 30 days of today’s date and the plaintiff to file and serve within a further 15 days. Christina Inglis Judge Judgment signed at 11.30 am on 18 July 201...

8. New Zealand Law Society v Dorbu [2011] NZLCDT 24 [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...striking off order there must be a: “consideration of the practitioner’s overall conduct. It is necessary to have regard to the behaviour which gives rise to the finding of misconduct, and to the practitioner’s behaviour which occurs after the filing of the charge and up to the date of hearing. Such may tend to show that notwithstanding his earlier behaviour he is a fit and proper person.” [32] And later in the decision the Full Court held: “... an order for striking o...

9. Auckland Standards Committee v Holmes [2011] NZLCDT 31 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...at the time they were rendered sent to the clients, and authorities were not sought from affected clients to deduct the fees from monies being held on account by the practitioner’s firm. [6] Without detailing the specifics of the particular files which resulted in the charges, the situation that gave rise to the charges related to relatively small balances (the largest being $337.50) which had been sitting in the firm’s trust account ledger over many years, and client contact h...

10. Edinburgh Realty Ltd & Ors v CAC 20004 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 16 [pdf, 122 KB]

    ...Committee’s decision dismissing particular aspects of her complaint. [2] The Committee has not yet determined what penalty orders, if any, should be made. Counsel for the licensees argues it should not do so now that an appeal has 2 been filed. The licensees do not wish to incur the expense of a penalty hearing before the Committee; nor do they want the Committee to issue a penalty decision without hearing from them on penalty. The Authority considers the Committee is free...