Search Results

1. [2020] NZEmpC 138 Alkazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...September 2020. Summonses were issued for eight individuals, all past and present senior employees of the defendant company, seven of whom now seek to have them set aside. The application is opposed by the plaintiff. Written submissions were filed in support of, and in opposition to, the application. I have also heard from counsel for the seven individuals (Mr Bryant) and Mr AlKazaz (in person) by telephone hearing. [2] In order to deal with the application, it is necess...

2. Parata - Waitangi A1 A2 (2020) 95 Tairawhiti MB 210 (95 TRW 210) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...listed owner, though she may be a beneficiary of the Wi Pewhairangi Walker Whānau Trust associated with these blocks. (c) I might have a conflict in this case based upon a previous recusal. I advised all parties that I would review all the files concerning these blocks to ascertain if that was so. A review of the applications that have been heard by the Court concerning Waitangi A1A2 was completed. In 2016, an application was filed for a review and variation of trust. On 2 Au...

3. Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal Annual Report 2019-20 [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...suppression of name, or as to the admissibility of evidence. In 2019/20, the Tribunal issued 22 such decisions or rulings. Eight rulings were regarding applications to adduce new evidence, one amended the charges laid, two ruled that three appeals were filed out of time, and a further ruling accepted the late filing of two of these appeals. One ruling declined a strike out application, one ruling declined an application to remit two appeals back to the Complaints Assessment Committe...

4. Bacic v Tulip Holdings Limited (in liq) [pdf, 26 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: Bacic & Anor v Tulip Holdings Ltd (in liq) & Ors File No: TRI 2008-100-000046/ DBH 00606 Court: WHT Adjudicator: P McConnell Date of Decision: 11 June 2009 Background The claimants, Mr and Mrs Bacic, experienced problems with their new home from the day they moved in. Some remedial work has been carried out but the majority is yet to be done. The first, fifth and ninth respondents were removed during the proceedings and so the claimants sought $275,5...

5. [2020] NZEnvC 209 Beresford v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...as to characterise the reasons offered by Mr Page as disingenuous. However, I am not persuaded that they accurately or reliably represent what actually transpired in any decision-making by Bike Wanaka. (77] The length of delay before Bike Wanaka filed its s27 4 notice is not itself fatal. Rather, it is the lack of any reliable justification or reason for doing so. Therefore, I find I do not have a proper basis for granting waiver and, in view of the prejudice that would ensue to Mr...

6. [2020] NZEmpC 116 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v NewZealand Fusion International Ltd [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...interests of justice that a stay is granted, and I decline to do so. The application is dismissed accordingly. [15] The parties are encouraged to agree costs. If that does not prove possible, I will receive memoranda, with the Labour Inspector filing and serving her memorandum within 21 days, and the defendants filing their memorandum within a further 14 days. Christina Inglis Chief Judge Judgment signed at 2.30 pm on 4 August 2020...

7. [2020] NZEmpC 146 Shaw v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...understand, is about that discussion and its result, to support the pleadings of bullying and harassment. However, as a summonsed witness there is no brief of his expected evidence, and no “will say statement” of the anticipated evidence was filed. [5] Against that brief background, Mr Single was served with a witness summons on 11 September 2020. Pursuant to that summons he is required to attend the Employment Court, in Auckland on 21 September 2020 at 9.30 am until release...

8. [2020] NZEmpC 127 123 Casino Ltd T/A 123 Palm Bar & Restaurant & Function Centre v Zuo [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...Guideline Scale applies a daily recovery rate gleaned from sch 2 of the High Court Rules 2016 as amended from time to time. Until 1 August 2019 that rate was $2,230 per day. From that date it rose to $2,390. When Ms Moncur’s costs submissions were filed the whole of the calculation she provided was based on claiming for each step in the Guideline Scale using the higher daily rate; that is the one that applied after 1 August 2019. In fact, only three of the steps taken in the p...

9. XD v MU [2020] NZDT 1311 (14 May 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...of the Disputes Tribunal hearing there is no jurisdiction for the District Court to reach a finding different to that of the Referee. A Notice of Appeal may be obtained from the Ministry of Justice, Disputes Tribunal website. The Notice must be filed at the District Court of which the Tribunal that made the decision is a division, within 28 days of the decision having been made. There is a $200 filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside of 28 days if you have been granted an...

10. [2019] NZEnvC 123 Schwartfeger v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 2.5 MB]

    ...blameworthiness in that an issue was pursued by the Council without merit before this Court notwithstanding the Court had given an earlier indication of its view on the topic. The 2016 fees [25] I am satisfied, as was the Court, that the Schwartfegers' filed an appeal before this Court in 2016 because of the notification to them that it was being considered as a s357 A objection. The document in question is annexed to the decision of the Court in 2016. That led them to consider...