Search Results

1. [2019] NZEmpC 118 Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd [pdf, 421 KB]

   ...costs orders were made in error having regard to the evidence he says he holds, which he set out in detail. [17] Mr Lorigan said his views as to illegality were supported by a range of domestic and international statutes. He concluded his statement by stating he believed there should be a judicial review or that the case be taken to the International Court of Justice. [18] On 12 August 2019, Mr Lorigan filed a notice of opposition to Infinity’s application, stating th...

2. IH v DD Ltd [2021] NZDT 1624 (12 July 2021) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...Although CU admitted disposing of IH’s goods, he relied on the fact that she had vacated the tenancy and had been asked to remove her goods from the property by a deadline. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 16. Abandonment can be a valid defence to a claim in conversion, but DD Ltd bears the onus of proving that the goods were abandoned. Inaction can amount to abandonment if it represents “a giving up, a total desertion, and absolute relinquishment” of the goods. IH was only g...

3. [2024] NZEmpC 39 Cronin-Lampe v Minister of Education [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...However, I acknowledge that latter view is not always the case, the Court having a broad discretion as to the timing of costs setting when an appeal is looming; much depends on the circumstances of the case.5 5 TUV v Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force [2019] NZEmpC 25 at [4]; citing Dwyer v Air New Zealand Ltd [1997] ERNZ 156 (EmpC). [16] On the basis of these considerations, I said my provisional view was that the above process should be followed; that is, that the a...

4. [2024] NZEmpC 31 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...jurisdiction to strike out judicial review applications due to his statutory rights under s 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and s 187(2) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). He also asserts that a decision maker must file a statement of defence under s 10(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016. [20] Additionally, Mr Halse submits that should the Court of Appeal find in his favour in other proceedings, Progress to Health would not be in a position to s...

5. DQ v OR & SN [2024] NZDT 879 (19 August 2024) [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...date of the advance. 20. I find that DQ had a right to repayment immediately from the date of each advance. If so, is there any question of limitation that may prevent an order for payment of that debt now? 21. SS’s estate has raised the defence of limitation. In simple terms, a party has 6 years to bring a claim from the date the cause of action arises. As the loan by DQ was a series of advances due to be repaid as from the date they were advanced, there are multiple limitat...

6. Geary v Accident Compensation Corporation [2013] NZHRRT 34 [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...and of any other details which might lead to their identification. There is to be no search of the Tribunal file without leave of the Tribunal or of the Chairperson. The reasons are: [5.1] In the Principle 6 matter, common bundle Vol 1 contains a statement by EFG in which she describes not only intimate details of her counselling and personal relationship with Mr Geary, but also intimate personal details concerning her daughter and her son. These private interests need to be protected...

7. [2022] NZEnvC 060 Eden-Epsom Residential Protection Society Inc v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...the outset, and an urgent decision of the Court, against the possibility such could inform the relevance (or not) of some topics in the substantive enquiry. The two urgent questions orally advised by the Court were: a) Does the National Policy Statement-Urban Development (NPS-UD) apply yet? It is operative, but does it drive PPC21; are we required to move ahead of decision-making by the Council on implementation of directive and urgent policies? [1] [2] [3] 3 b) If...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 123 CSN v Royal District Nursing Service NZ Ltd [pdf, 376 KB]

   ...administered in a caregiver’s domestic home or place of residence. [83] The first is that a broad interpretation of the definition would not be consistent with the purposes set out in cl 3 of the Vaccinations Order, nor with the broader statements of purpose discussed earlier in the COVID-19 Act. [84] Second, a broad interpretation would result in an absurd outcome, which cannot have been intended since no express reference was made to a caregiver’s own residence. 28...

9. [2019] NZEmpC 121 Shaw v Bay Of Plenty District Health Board [pdf, 544 KB]

   ...occurring contrary to the requirements of s 114 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). [3] The Authority subsequently investigated Ms Shaw’s dismissal grievance and issued a determination on 7 December 2018.2 [4] On 4 January 2019, a statement of claim was filed in this Court, challenging the substantive determination of the Authority. A hearing de novo was sought. The statement of claim alleged there were two disadvantage grievances and a dismissal grievance. The f...

10. Turner v University of Otago (Costs) [2021] NZHRRT 48 [pdf, 250 KB]

    ...of Dr Turner the Tribunal explained the differences between the two separate definitions of interference with privacy set out in s 66(1) and (2) and their very different requirements. [13] In response the University confirmed it had prepared its defence and its witness statements on the understanding the breaches alleged by Dr Turner were those pleaded in paragraphs 32 to 37 of the then statement of claim, that is a claim based on an interference with privacy as defined in s 66(1). Th...