Search Results

1. AF v Secretary for Justice 1 June 2012 NZRA 000009 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...an appeal”. Those remarks are compatible with the definition referred to in the Provider Manual quoted in para [9] above. [14] The applicant has carried out research, briefed witnesses, and drafted documents. She has carried out opening statements for the defence, led evidence and cross-examined witnesses including the Police. [15] Although desirable, I do not find it necessary that the applicant should have undertaken sentencing in indictable matters. The applicant makes a...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 234 2015 AFT v BCM [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...[60] If, however, the settlement agreement was entered into fairly and the mediator’s certification confirming its inviolability was properly applied, the Authority or the Court could not examine what would be the merits of the respondent’s defence to an unjustified dismissal claim. It is simply not possible to do more than identify the arguability of this issue, but it should not have been dismissed out of hand as the Authority did. [61] Turning to the merits of the applicant...

3. Improving jury trial timeliness - Discussion document [pdf, 447 KB]

   ...adjourned for trial callover if defendant has elected a jury trial. Criminal Procedure Rules 2012: Trial callover is to be held not later than 40 working days after adjournment for trial callover. TRIAL STAGE Jury trial Judge-alone trial Formal statements filed 25 working days, and trial callover memorandum filed 15 working days by prosecution before trial callover, filed by defence lawyer five working days before trial callover 6. Pre-trial admissibility hearing Admissibil...

4. [2019] NZEmpC 2 Clearkin v Geneva Healthcare Ltd [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...hoped to be able to resolve matters with the respondent company and had waited until the last day before deciding to pursue her challenge. She was stressed and anxious and overlooked the time. In the event she was 30 minutes late in filing her statement of claim. [2] The application is not opposed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, including the minimal extent of the delay and the reasons why the challenge was not pursued within time, I am satisfied that it is in th...

5. Otago RPS [pdf, 588 KB]

   ...happen where the hearing time allocated by the Court is not used. 2 EVIDENCE The parties must (subject to any existing timetable order or direction of the Court) : Exchange no later than 10 working days before the date of hearing - all of the statements and evidence that will be produced to the Court at the hearing. 3 MAORI LANGUAGE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS If any party or witness: 1. wishes to speak Maori at the hearing under the Maori Language Act 1987, or 2. has special needs...

6. [2016] NZEmpC 116 Owen v Chief Executive of the Dept of Corrections [pdf, 72 KB]

   ...unjustifiably disadvantaged. The Employment Relations Authority dismissed the grievance for reasons set out in a determination dated 26 July 2016. 1 [2] The applicant decided to challenge the Authority’s determination. Steps were taken to file a statement of claim on 24 August 2016. Filing was declined on the basis that it was one day out of time. 1 Owen v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [2016] NZERA Au...

7. DW and AW v EQC and State Insurance [2019] CEIT-2019-0001 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...respondent wishing to respond to the claim must file a response in the approved form and lodge supporting material with the Tribunal within 15 working days. If respondents believe that 15 working days is insufficient time within which to file a statement of defence they may seek an extension and a new date for the case management conference by filing a memorandum, within five days of receiving notification, with the Tribunal outlining the reasons for that belief and nominating the p...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 75 Opai v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...filing a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority dated 20 October 2023, which I refer to as the Authority’s third determination.1 While Ms Opai originally sought to challenge aspects of that determination via an amended statement of claim, the amended claim was rejected for filing on the basis that a fresh statement of claim was required. Because the statutory timeframe for filing a challenge had, by that time, elapsed, leave is required. This judgmen...

9. [2016] NZEmpC 107 Watson v Capital & Coast District Health Board [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...as to what arrangements would be required if Ms Watson was to return to her former position on Ward 2 at Wellington Hospital, or to an alternative position. Mediation was held on 20 May 2015. The parties were unable to reach agreement on reinstatement issues either then or subsequently. [3] On 28 May 2015, Ms Watson lodged a statement of problem with the Authority seeking an urgent compliance order. That application was dismissed. 3 [4] On 29 May 2015, the CCDHB made a prelimi...

10. [2016] NZEmpC 170 Global Cover Insurances Ltd v Bhamji [pdf, 67 KB]

    ...Plaintiff AND MUSTAFA BHAMJI Defendant Judgment: 20 December 2016 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] This challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority was filed on 20 October 2016. 1 The statement of claim failed to meet the minimum requirements of reg 11 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000 (the Regulations). [2] The Court issued a Minute on 31 October 2016 requiring the plaintiff to file and serve an amended statement...