Search Results

1. [2016] NZEmpC 43 Pretorius v Marra Construction (2004) Ltd [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...being considered separately from two others. [34] Next, Mr Jacobson argues that removal would provide an opportunity for the Court to provide guidance to the Authority for the purposes of such cases. In effect it is asserted that the Court’s statements on time-limitation issues will potentially be useful. In my view, any such guidance can arise from the determination of the challenge; it is not necessary for the cause of action itself to be removed in order to achieve...

2. KN v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 106 (28 February 2023) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...hearing, and prior to KN withdrawing her claim, I read the details of her claim and went through her documentary evidence, as well as the several documents she sent in on the day of the hearing. I also read T Ltd’s counterclaim and the Will Say statements submitted by the respondent and had a look through the respondent’s extensive bundle of documents to familiarise myself with what was there. At the hearing of T Ltd’s counterclaim, UU read through the document T Ltd had prepared in...

3. [2007] NZEmpC CC 8/07 Employee v Employer [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...parties or of any other information which might tend to identify them. Consistent with that order, this judgment will simply refer to the parties as “the applicant” and “the respondent”. [3] The applicant lodged an initial statement of problem with the Employment Relations Authority in September 2003. In it, she made a series of allegations that her employment had been affected to her disadvantage by unjustifiable actions on the part of the respondent. In Febr...

4. Engelbrecht TRI-2020-100-007 Procedural Order 5 [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...given was the sale of the dwelling. He was notified by the WHRS of the closure of the claim on 8 October 2008. [24] Another assessor’s report was issued on 11 March 2009. [25] The council issued a notice to fix on 11 January 2010. 15 Statement of Claim (11 November 2020), “Chronology of Events”. 16 Assessor’s eligibility report (5 September 2008) at [10]. 7 [26] On 19 August 2010, the council issued building consent for repairs. The designer was Mr Foley...

5. Cooper v Wellington City Council [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...adjudication hearing due to ill health and did not appear at the hearing. A medical certificate was attached to the letter of 28 May 2006 and it advised that in the opinion of the doctor Mr Kennedy was not fit to attend court on a permanent basis. A ‘Statement of Defence of Second Respondent’ was filed by counsel for the Second Respondent in February 2006. 1.11 Counsel for the First Respondent provided a Casebook with details of 20 cases that were applicable to the proceeding...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 177 Kereru Investments Ltd v Meads [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...INVESTMENTS LIMITED Plaintiff AND SAMARA ANN MEADS Defendant Hearing: (on the papers) Judgment: 27 September 2013 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A D FORD [1] On 25 June 2013, the plaintiff filed a statement of claim in this Court challenging by way of de novo hearing the whole of a determination of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) dated 28 May 2013. 1 The determination had found that the plaintiff was Ms Meads...

7. 27 July 2020 - Brookby Quarries Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 283 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 MĀORI LANGUAGE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS If any party or witness: 1. wishes to speak Māori at the hearing under the Māori Language Act 1987, or 2. has special ne...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 10 Brunton v Garden City Helicopters Ltd [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...lengthy documents which were included at the request of the defendant including the entire operations manual of 160 pages and pilot log book extracts of 111 pages. [21] Mr Moran noted that the defendant had filed two slightly different amended statements of defence and filed them both on the same day. Mr Moran also opposed the making of any order to recompense executive time and submitted that the amount being claimed was excessive. [22] Mr Moran invited the Court to take into...

9. ABS Ltd v ZYL and ZYK [2013] NZDT 36 (15 March 2013) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...prospects of success: cattle trespass is a tort of strict liability subject to s 26 of the Impounding Act, as to which, there was evidence that the boundary fence was stock- proof. It is, however, clear from section 10(5) of the 1988 Act that limitation defences apply in the Tribunal as they apply in the court system generally. FG explained in his written evidence why ABS Ltd was unable to commence proceedings earlier. One of those reasons was the ongoing dispute with ZYL about bou...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 112 Kazemi v Rightway Ltd [pdf, 289 KB]

    ...[2017] NZERA Auckland 300. [6] On 20 October 2017, the Authority determined costs and granted the stay of the Authority’s proceedings sought by Ms Kazemi.2 The Authority awarded $1,500 costs to the defendants. [7] The defendants filed statements of defence to the challenge in the Employment Court. Prior to the first directions conference, they also filed a memorandum raising the issue of whether Ms Kazemi’s adoption of the s 179 challenge process was appropriate or w...