Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 116 Pollett v Browns Real Estate Ltd [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...have an affidavit sworn in Australia relates not to the expiry of the 28 day period within which to challenge by right, but to delay after the expiry of that period. [10] There is really no satisfactory explanation for Mr Pollett’s delay in filing his challenge within time. [11] Next is the length of the delay. The Authority’s determination dismissing Mr Pollett’s claims was issued on 30 March 2011. Although the Authority subsequently issued a costs’ determination on 13...

2. [2006] NZEmpC AC 33/06 Roberts v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...has accepted subsequently that Mr Roberts submitted his personal grievance (to use the language of s33 of the Employment Contracts Act 1991) within time. [5] The next relevant event is said to have taken place in October 2003 when Mr Roberts filed a statement of problem in the Employment Relations Authority alleging that he had been unjustifiably dismissed and seeking reinstatement and compensation. He also sought removal of his case into this Court for hearing at first instance....

3. [2007] NZEmpC AC 22/07 Khan v Khan [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...respondent is Mr Mahmood Alam Khan who is the applicant in an application before me today and I will come to that in a minute. [3] As I say a decision of the Employment Tribunal was delivered on 26 July 1995. An appeal against that decision was filed with the Employment Court under the Employment Contracts Act 1991 on 21 August 1995. Notice of that appeal was not served on Mr Mahmood Alam Khan until 5 June 2006. That substantial delay is really unexplained and in resp...

4. Ching v Regmi & Ors [2014] NZWHT Auckland 4 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...full costs of the remedial work, consequential losses and damages. Mr Regmi subsequently made a successful application to be removed as a respondent to the claim. [3] Shortly before the hearing, counsel for Mr and Mrs Ching and the Council filed a memorandum recording their agreement on the Council’s liability and on quantum. I excused counsel for Mr and Mrs Ching from attending the hearing and the claim instead proceeded on a formal proof basis based on the evidence filed,...

5. Popa v Canterbury University (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...discrimination has occurred because despite being “one of the best in mathematics on this earth” and graduating with a PhD, she has been unable to obtain employment at the University of Canterbury, even as a tutor. [7] By statement of reply filed in August 2016, the University says (inter alia) that Dr Popa has not formally applied for any job vacancies with the University. In addition, her lack of teaching abilities and interpersonal skills means she is not suited to working with...

6. [2017] EmpC 155 Quality Consumables v Hannah [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for security for costs BETWEEN QUALITY CONSUMABLES LIMITED Plaintiff AND NICOLE HANNAH Defendant Hearing: On the papers filed on 31 October and 24 November 2017 Appearances: M Ryan, counsel for plaintiff G Pollak and J Lynch, counsel for defendant Judgment: 7 December 2017 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT (NO 2) OF JUDGE M E PERKINS APPLI...

7. Wihongi v Samson - Otarihau 2B1C [2018] Māori Appellate Court MB 469 (2018 APPEAL 469) [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...MB 470 Introduction [1] On 20 December 1983, Thelma Wihongi transferred her shares in Otarihau 2B1C to her brother Samuel Samson, so he could build a house on the land. Twenty-five years later, Thelma’s daughter, Hema (Broad) Wihongi filed an application in the Māori Land Court seeking the return of those shares. She argued that Thelma and Sam had an arrangement that, once he obtained a house site on the land, the shares would be returned. [2] On 29 March 2018, Deputy...

8. [2017] NZEmpC 122 Centraus Ltd v Barcena [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...AND ORLANDO ALOANG BARCENA First Respondent AND CORY KILCULLEN Second Respondent AND HUAN NGUYEN Third Respondent AND KBN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS LIMITED Fourth Respondent Hearing: On documents filed without notice to the respondent; by telephone on 4 October 2017 and on further material supplied Appearances: J Pullar, counsel for applicant Judgment: 4 October 2017 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE J C HOLDEN Introducti

9. [2019] NZEmpC 143 Sfizio Ltd v Freeborn [pdf, 420 KB]

   ...employing entity and would breach company law principles that the corporate veil may not be pierced; and that in any event, Ms Freeborn’s employment agreement was validly terminated under a 90-day trial provision. [6] Careful submissions have been filed addressing the joinder issue; essentially, each submission develops the grounds of application on the one hand, and the grounds of opposition on the other. Oral submissions have also been presented.

10. [2021] NZEnvC 061 Upper Clutha Environmental Society Incorporated v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 1.4 MB]

    ...proposed mapping alteration greater than the interest the general public has may give notice under s274 (using Form 33) to join as a party for the purposes of the s293 process for consideration of the proposed mapping alteration, provided that person files that notice within 25 working days of the date of this decision; c. where notice is duly filed and the court is satisfied that person has an interest in the proposed mapping alteration greater than the interest the general public has,...