Search Results

1. [2019] NZEnvC 145 Bunnings Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 2.3 MB]

   ...v Commerce Commissioner [1987] 2 NZLR 10. Road Metals v Christchurch City Council C9/07 at [12]. Kerry (NZ) Ltd v Taylor(1991 ) 2 PRNZ 393. Just One Life Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council C142/02. 5 [8] The Council submits that its defence of the decision at first instance was in accordance with its duty to administer its District Plan on its terms and in accordance with previous decisions of the courts 13 . The court in this case found that the provisions handed down in...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 170 X v Secretary for Justice [pdf, 52 KB]

   ...directed that the interim order would lapse and there would be no restriction on publication. The plaintiff was described as “X” for present purposes. [3] At present, the application for stay and the non-de novo challenge contained in the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff have yet to be formally served on the defendant. However, Mr Goldstein, counsel for the plaintiff, has kept Mr Sherriff, counsel for the defendant, informed of the plaintiff’s desire to have the sta...

3. [2023] NZEmpC 160 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment v Airways Corp of New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...LIMITED Second Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: G La Hood, counsel for plaintiff G Davenport, counsel for defendants Judgment: 25 September 2023 CONSENT JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL [1] In the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff in this case, it sought declarations under s 6(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) in respect of three individuals, one of whom was Stuart Balchin. It was alleged he was an employee o...

4. [2021] NZEmpC 107 Smartlift Systems Ltd v Armstrong [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...challenged the procedural findings made against it and the extent of remedies awarded. 2 Armstrong v Smartlift Systems Ltd [2019] NZERA 592 (Member van Keulen). [8] The proceedings in the Court started life when Smartlift filed its statement of claim on 13 November 2019; on the same day it applied for a stay of proceedings, which if granted would prevent enforcement of the monetary orders made by the Authority. An amended application was filed on 19 November 2019 and s...

5. Guo v Culpan (Strike-Out) [2018] NZHRRT 25 [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...The statement of claim filed on 6 May 2016 specified that the relevant provisions of the Privacy Act on which Ms Guo relied were principle 6 and section 40. Accordingly, the proceedings were conducted on this basis. [5] Ms Guo filed four amended statements of claim on 8 June 2017, 6 September 2017, 22 September 2017, and 5 January 2018 respectively. Each of these specified that the relevant provisions of the Privacy Act were principle 6 and section 40. In the amended claim filed...

6. [2011] NZEmpC 57 Wade v Hume Pack-N-Cool Ltd [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...facts emerge. The applicant challenged the Authority’s determination on 8 November 2007 and elected to have a hearing de 1 AA 322/07, 16 October 2007. novo. The respondent failed to file its statement of defence in time and applied for leave to file out of time. That application was not opposed and Chief Judge Colgan granted leave to extend the time for filing the statement of defence. The matter was called over before me on...

7. [2010] NZEmpC 24 Tian v Hollywood Bakery (Holdings) Ltd [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...were being sought by the plaintiff. Mr Liu submitted that the costs incurred by the defendant were increased because of the way the plaintiff’s representative conducted the case. [3] Mr Liu referred first to the difficulties in obtaining a statement of claim which complied with the Employment Court Regulations 2000 (the Regulations) and which would have permitted the defendant to be properly informed of the claims against it. Mr Liu set out the attendances which were required...

8. [2014] NZEmpC 116 Wilson v Wilson [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...be called which meant that Mr B Wilson did not give evidence. It was submitted that the failure to notify the plaintiff of the defendants’ intentions was “underhand”, and created unnecessary costs of preparation. b) The defendants’ statement of defence put all matters in issue, particularly justification. c) The Court was informed by counsel for the defendants that as at the date of hearing on 5 May 2014 the first defendant company existed and had not been dissolved...

9. ZA v YB LCRO 333/2012 (15 August 2014) [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...payment of these accounts and when Ms XC declined to enter into a funding facility referred to as “fee smart” payments on account of the sums outstanding were made by Mr ZA from time to time. The last payment made by him is recorded in the final statement issued by Mr YB as being $319.38 on 19 June 2011.1 That statement recorded the balance outstanding as being $24,044.46 which includes the costs paid by Mr YB on Mr ZA’s behalf. [8] Ms XC finally advised Mr ZA that unless...

10. [2020] NZEmpC 135 Wills v Farmlands Co-Operative Society Ltd [pdf, 210 KB]

    ...progress with her personal grievance, but they were not answered. Ms Wills and Mr Mason met in mid-July 2018 when he explained for the first time that no steps had been taken to raise a grievance with Farmlands. A grievance was not raised until a statement of problem was lodged with the Authority on 27 August 2018 and served on the company. Raising a personal grievance [9] As has already been mention, s 114(1) of the Act requires a personal grievance to be raised within 90 d...