Search Results

1. [2016] NZEmpC 2 Northern Amalgamated Workers Union of NZ v Golden Bay Cement [pdf, 205 KB]

   THE NORTHERN AMALGAMATED WORKERS' UNION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED v FLETCHER CONCRETE AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED T/A GOLDEN BAY CEMENT NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 2 [1 February 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2016] NZEmpC 2 EMPC 95/2015 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AMALGAMATED WORKERS' UNION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED Plaintiff AND F

2. Beauchamp 30 March 2014 NZSHD 4 [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...3 [17] Breaches of these provisions are offences against the Act. Penalties are provided, typically with a maximum fine of $10,000. This reflects how seriously breaches of the provisions are to be regarded. [18] The Police Complaint was filed under s.29(1) of the Act and a copy of the Complaint was sent to Mr. Beauchamp pursuant to s.29(2). At the same time he was advised, in terms of s.26(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, that he was entitled to request a hearing in person before the A...

3. Legal aid criminal fixed fees consultation - summary of submissions [pdf, 517 KB]

   ...there is a reassignment of provider. A common view was that there were various legitimate reasons when reassignment may occur that were not the fault of the provider. In almost all circumstances the new provider would need to review the full file. Most of those who commented thought that providers would not be adequately compensated if they were only paid a proportion of the base fee. Response We have considered submitters’ feedback and agree that our original proposal for Sche...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 76 Sealord Group Ltd v Pickering [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...per cent. [5] In a subsequent determination dated 9 January 2014, the Authority ordered Sealord to pay Mr Pickering a total of $7,822 towards his legal costs, $1,425 towards his accountant’s professional fees and $71.56 as reimbursement on the filing fee. 2 [6] Sealord then challenged both of the Authority's determinations in this Court seeking a full rehearing of the entire matter. Mr Pickering cross-challenged seeking an increase in the relief granted by the Authority. F...

5. Wouldes v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 409), Tremain & Nathan [2017] NZREADT 67 [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...apartment in May 2014. [9] On 24 October 2014 the solicitors for the Body Corporate sent all apartment owners a letter headed “Building Defects Claim”, which enclosed an “authority to uplift” form which authorised the Body Corporate to uplift files held by the owners’ solicitors relating to their purchase of their apartment. A “Proprietors’ Newsletter” dated 14 November 2014 was headed “Building Investigations”, and referred to legal proceedings issued by t...

6. Teina Pora compensation claim quantum report [pdf, 9 MB]

   ...Guidelines.2 2. For the purpose of this report I have considered written submissions (supplemented by affidavit evidence and supporting documents) on behalf of Mr Pora and submissions in response on behalf of the Crown. Mr Pora took the opportunity to file submissions in reply. I have been greatly assisted by this material and record my gratitude for the assistance of counsel responsible, Mr Jonathan Krebs and Ms Ingrid Squire for Mr Pora and Dr Mathew Downs for the Crown. 3. Unde...

7. [2016] NZEmpC 83 Savage v Capital Coast DHB [pdf, 259 KB]

   DAVID SAVAGE v CAPITAL & COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD NZEmpC WELLINGTON [2016] NZEmpC 83 [30 June 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2016] NZEmpC 83 EMPC 374/2015 IN THE MATTER OF a challege to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN DAVID SAVAGE Plaintiff AND CAPITAL & COAST DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Defendant Hearing: 18-19 April 2016 (heard at Wellington) Appearances: G O'

8. Schiller-Cooper v Lozano [2013] NZIACDT 1 (08 January 2013) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...Ms Schiller-Cooper was dissatisfied with the service. Mr Chang drew Ms Schiller-Cooper’s attention to the Authority’s dispute guidelines. [32] When Ms Schiller-Cooper’s complaint was received in writing, Mr Chang responded by reviewing the file and reporting on his conclusions. The key points he raised in response were: [32.1] The concerns regarding the address were a minor administrative issue, and nothing turned on it. [32.2] Advice regarding the possibility of Ms Schiller-Coo...

9. [2018] NZEnvC 009 Invercargill Airport Ltd v Invercargill City Council [pdf, 6.6 MB]

   ...recommended amendments to Appendix VI fall within the ambit of s 293 of the Act and the court's jurisdiction. They seek that the court exercise its powers under that section to make the amendments sought. Evidence [14J The parties have filed two statements of evidence in support of the s 293 application . As the hearing is on the papers and the experts will not have the opportunity to either swear or affirm their evidence, it would have been preferable for the evidence to b...

10. LCRO 217/2017 PY v SD [pdf, 395 KB]

    ...complaint against him. [33] The Committee warned Mr SD to be “more cognisant in the future of the importance of independence”, and recommended that he “review other powers of attorney made by his firm”. Application for review [34] Mrs PY filed an application for review on 17 November 2017. She disagrees with both the approach taken and the conclusion reached by the Committee. At the hearing, she refuted that she was the type of person described by Mr SD in his response...