Search Results

1. [2007] NZEmpC CC 23/07 Coy v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...exceptional circumstances. I do not find the other relevant events to which she has deposed and that occurred before mid September 2002 amount to exceptional circumstances in employment. Indeed, Ms Coy’s own affidavit sworn on 12 November 2007 and filed in support of her application for leave does not address any pre-September 2002 circumstances that might be relevant to her reasons for not raising a personal grievance within time. Nor does the affidavit evidence of the plainti...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 11 Bernard Matthews NZ Ltd v Puhia [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN OVATION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (FORMERLY BERNARD MATTHEWS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED) Plaintiff AND CHRIS PUHIA Defendant Hearing: By evidence and memoranda of submissions filed on 20 January and 1 February 2011 Counsel: Gary Tayler, advocate for plaintiff Mark Webster, counsel for defendant Judgment: 14 February 2011 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] The parties have agreed that the ch...

3. Easthope v Pirikia - Te Ngae Farm Trust (2012) 62 Waiariki MB 92 (62 WAR 92) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...of the Te Ngae Farm Trust are the members of the Ngāti Rangiteaorere iwi; and (b) The use and administration of the land vested in the trust is to be undertaken for the interests of the Ngāti Rangiteaorere iwi. [2] The application has been filed due to disagreement amongst the trustees as to who should benefit from the trust. The applicants say that the trust is for the benefit of the members of Ngāti Rangiteaorere iwi, while other trustees, Aramakaraka Pirika, Hiwinui Heke, P...

4. [2016] NZEmpC 43 Pretorius v Marra Construction (2004) Ltd [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...to remove matter to the Employment Court pursuant to s 178(3) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 BETWEEN FREDRICK PRETORIUS Applicant AND MARRA CONSTRUCTION (2004) LIMITED Respondent Hearing: (on the papers filed 26 January, 25 February, 11 and 23 March 2016) Counsel: D Jacobson, counsel for the applicant K Patterson, counsel for the respondent Judgment: 19 April 2016 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL Introduction [...

5. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Tee [2013] NZLCDT 34 [pdf, 43 KB]

   ...the conduct itself, Mr Tee’s failure to engage in the disciplinary process, and his prior conduct, indicated strike-off was the appropriate penalty to ensure public protection. Submissions for Mr Tee [13] For Mr Tee, submissions had been filed in response to those filed and relied on by the Standards Committee. As noted, there was no appearance for Mr Tee at the penalty hearing, only the written submissions lodged on his behalf. [14] The Tribunal considered the submissio...

6. XA v AY LCRO 22 / 2012 (6 June 2013) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...difficulties he was having relating to his business as a [farmer] and seller of [product]. I note at the outset that Ms AY was the lawyer with overall supervision of the matter; however a number of other members of Ms AY’s firm also worked on this file. [2] Mr XA had a number of matters with which he needed assistance. a. He had a significant business in selling [the product] to other [farmers], however the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) prohibited the movement of [...

7. Landon v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 12 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...nor Mr Middleton called any evidence on this issue and the onus was on them to do so. [16] I conclude that it should have been apparent to Mr Matthews and Mr Middleton, particularly as they were legally represented, that by the time they filed their responses to the claim that their allegations against IAG lacked substantial merit. For these reasons, and because the defence costs sought far exceeded IAG’s potential liability, the decision by Mr Matthews and Mr Middleton to...

8. Taylor v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 42 [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...[11] Accordingly, by my Procedural Order 5, I ordered that Leslie Patterson England be joined to this claim as a respondent. [12] Neither the second or third respondents have subsequently taken any steps in this claim. They have not filed responses to the claim as ordered. They have not given discovery of documents as ordered. They have filed no evidence in opposition to the claims against them. [13] At a mediation conducted on 10 May 2012, the Council proceede...

9. Brown - Waipaoa 1A1 (1993) 33 Tairawhiti Appellate MB 74 (33 APGS 74) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...(for the Appellants) Mrs Bev Murray (for the Maori Trustee) HEARING: 23 August 1993, Mr Barber: I have prepared a synopsis in my argument. With respect to these two blocks, the full facts are set out particularly well in folio 140 of the application file 9179, As it appears from the records they are two very large blocks. One Waipaoa 1AI which is part of Arowhana which is one of our local mountains here, is virtually land locked. The company of Hukurangi Forest Farms which appears throughout...

10. Hikaka v Ngawhare - Komene 4A2 (2016) 356 Aotea MB 76 (356 AOT 76) [pdf, 234 KB]

    ...any event, that question need not be answered at this point. In light of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the changes sought to the trust order are appropriate. [24] That said, I intend to allow any of the uri of Taneroa the opportunity to file any further submissions within 1 month from the date of this judgment on the application as part of any proposed application for rehearing. For completeness, I note that urgency is required due to the health concerns that were outline...