Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 31 Ahuja and ors v Labour Inspector MBIE [pdf, 311 KB]

   ...agents of an employer company in liquidation. Those proceedings were the subject of a determination dated 8 December 2016.2 Costs were reserved. There was also a challenge to that determination which has since been resolved, and the challenge filed in this Court has been discontinued. [3] The present challenge is against the whole of the Authority’s second determination. A hearing de novo in the Court was sought. [4] The investigation resulting in the determination on the...

2. [2017] NZEnvC 181 Titirangi Protection Group Inc and Ors v Watercare Services Limited and Auckland Council [pdf, 10 MB]

   ...unnecessary to make alternate declarations confirming the scope of this designation. The Court concludes its decision is sufficient in the circumstances. B: Costs are reserved. If any party wishes to make an application for costs they are to file the same within 15 working days and any reply within a further 10 working days. An application is not encouraged. REASONS Introduction [1] This declaration addresses the scope of a so-called "legacy" designation (9324) conta...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 202 Higgs v Monro Ltd [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...The assault was an angry reaction, and one which was quite inappropriate in the workplace. Contribution was fixed at 50 per cent. This too is the subject of the challenge by Mr Higgs. Issues before the Court [14] The first pleading to be filed was Mr Higgs’ statement of claim raising a non de novo challenge in respect of remedies. This was followed by Monro’s statement of defence including a non de novo cross-challenge as to the findings made in respect of procedural unfa...

4. [2017] NZEmpC 69 8i Corp v Marino [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...shares, pending the outcome of the determination. [3] The plaintiffs’ claim that Mr Marino’s alleged breaches of the terms of settlement have triggered cl 6 and the buy-back provisions contained within cl 5 of the agreement. 1 Mr Marino has filed a counterclaim against 8i Corp seeking, amongst other things, a compliance order requiring it to continue making payments to him under cl 5. He alleges that even if he has been in material breach of the settlement agreement (which...

5. Pryor v Perenara - Matata 930 (2005) 105 Whakatāne MB 254 (105 WHK 254) [pdf, 4.5 MB]

   ...in June 2001. The wharenui was opened on 15 December 200 I and the wharekai was blessed at the same time. The 1999 trustees failed to hold alUllIal general meetings for the years 2000 and 2001. On 25 September 2002, the chainllan Reuben Perenara filed an application seeking directions fj·om the COlllt which included a request for postponement of the annual Millute Book: 105 WHK 256 general meeting until 27 April 2003. It was anticipated that all work on the project would be comple...

6. LCRO 74/2017 SD v TM (31 January 2019) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...Mr RN and the company on one side of the transaction, against Mr SD on the other side, thereby undermining the fiduciary obligation owed to Mr SD, Mr TM had contravened r 8.7.1(d). Application for review [25] In his application for a review, filed with this Office on 5 April 2017, Mr SD seeks a reconsideration of the Committee’s decision: (a) not to direct publication of Mr TM’s name; (b) not to order Mr SD to pay compensation; and (c) that [the Committee’s decision] rem...

7. LCRO 48/2014 M LJ and the trustees of the M LJ Family Trust v PY (5 June 2019) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...2 the farms. The LJs also operated a company in which they were directors and shareholders. The Trusts displayed outward manifestations of partnership, including by arranging for Trusts Partnership accounts to be prepared, and presumably by filing tax returns based on the Trusts Partnership accounts. [4] In May 2010, Mr and Mrs LJ separated. Mr LJ moved out. Mrs LJ and the children did not. Company and farming operations continued. [5] Mrs LJ and her husband discussed thei...

8. LCRO 024/2018 NN v AE (23 April 2019) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...representation”. [33] By doing so, Ms NN had “attempt[ed] to link the REAA complaints process with the allegation regarding Mrs SL’s past conduct” for the “ancillary” purpose of “silenc[ing]” Mrs SL. Application for review [34] Ms NN filed an application for review on 8 February 2018. She disagrees with the Committee’s finding that she contravened rr 2.7, and 10. She seeks a reversal of the finding of unsatisfactory conduct, and orders of a fine, and costs....

9. LCRO 87/2019 G OR v F HM (10 July 2020) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...was for Ms KD, upon receiving Mr HM’s request, to tell Mr HM whether she needed Dr OR’s consent to provide him with the information requested, and if so “then [to have] taken instructions from Dr OR”. Application for review [22] Dr OR filed an application for review on 26 June 2019. She expresses her concern that having obtained the information from Ms KD, Mr HM's “actions and 6 Mr HM, letter to Lawyers Complaints Serv...

10. LCRO 151/2016 and 157/2016 NS v TD and TD v NS (27 September 2018) [pdf, 325 KB]

    ...finding that he had erred on this occasion, it did not wish to discourage lawyers from reporting suspected misconduct. Moreover, the breach was at the very low end of the unsatisfactory conduct spectrum. Application for review — Mr NS [26] Mr NS filed an application for review on 1 July 2016. He asks for the Committee’s unsatisfactory conduct determinations against him to be set aside and he seeks the imposition of a penalty on Mr TD for his unsatisfactory conduct. [27] As t...