Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Wintour [2025] NZLCDT 25 (7 May 2025) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...barrister with technical competence. He enjoys good relationships with colleagues. It has been disappointing to witness the unhappy aspects of his character that emerged through this disciplinary process. A lawyer will not be penalised for vigorous defence in disciplinary matters, but the manner of the defence can bear upon penalty where it affects assessment of character and whether contrition is genuine.2 [3] Penalty must be undertaken dispassionately and proportionately, taki...

2. NT v HS [2020] NZDT 1312 (21 October 2020) [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...are defined in the CGA? 10. The test for acceptable quality is whether a reasonable consumer would consider the horse was acceptable, having regard to the price paid, the nature of the vendor and the context in which the horse was supplied, any statement made about the horse, and all other relevant circumstances of the supply (s7). 11. The test for fitness for purpose is whether the horse was reasonably fit for racing, unless the circumstances show that the purchaser did not rely o...

3. 2023-10-11-Rebuttal-Evidence-of-G-Eccles-Planning-Framework.pdf [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...Management Act 1991 In the matter of the direct referral of applications for resource consent and notices of requirement under sections 87G and 198E of the Act for the Ōtaki to North of Levin Project By Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF GRANT ROBERT ECCLES ON BEHALF OF WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY Dated 10 October 2023 mailto:david.allen@buddlefindlay.com mailto:thaddeus.ryan@buddlefindlay.com TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUC...

4. 2015 Ministry of Justice annual report [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...supporting our Ministers We negotiate Treaty of Waitangi settlements – building positive relationships and durable settlements between the Crown and Māori 75% District Courts 22% Specialist Courts and tribunals 3% Higher Courts Our Public Defence Service, accepted 15,400 new cases. It is New Zealand’s largest law practice We spent $130 million on Legal Aid – helping people who can’t afford a lawyer to get legal advice Our Collections unit is NZ’s largest debt-col...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 1 Howard v Carter Holt Harvey Packaging Ltd [pdf, 28 KB]

   ...[2] The applicant pursued a personal grievance alleging unjustifiable dismissal but, in its determination dated 5 September 2013,1 [3] The applicant decided to challenge the Authority’s determination. To do so as of right, he had to file a statement of claim in the Court within 28 days after the the Employment Relations Authority found that the dismissal was justifiable. 1 [2013] NZERA Christchurch 186. date of the det...

6. [2019] NZEmpC 89 Martinsen v Target International (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...strike out [1] The plaintiff, Mr Martinsen, has challenged a determination of the Employment Relations Authority that found that Mr Martinsen’s dismissal by the defendant, Target International (NZ) Ltd (Target), was justified.1 [2] In his statement of claim, Mr Martinsen refers to a telephone discussion between him and Mr Bielby, the Managing Director of Target, on Friday 14 July 2017. The conversation Mr Martinsen refers to in his statement of claim included a proposal...

7. Regulatory Impact Statement Claim of Right [pdf, 505 KB]

8. [2022] NZEmpC 144 Vulcan Steel Ltd v Manufacturing & Construction Workers Union [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...parties in any subsequent bargaining, we do not think, in the particular circumstances, this factor should result in a decrease. [28] Finally, Mr Patterson argued that additional steps had to be undertaken by Vulcan Steel because a more explicit statement of defence had to be filed, and this was not straightforward. [29] We accept that Mr Patterson did raise issues as to the sufficiency of the statement of defence; this was referred to in correspondence between counsel and ul...

9. UC v K Ltd [2024] NZDT 426 (17 June 2024) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...price. If any such charges were made with respect to the [Country 1] to [Country 2] flights, it appears they have already been refunded to UC when he cancelled the (refundable) fares. This is set out in K Ltd’s evidence at paragraph 22 of the “Statement of Defence” filed by K Ltd. I accept this evidence. 7. UC also claims he should not be required to pay a $50.00 administration fee for each of the cancelled flights. UC’s whole claim is for a total of $4,965.00 (leaving aside...

10. 2014 Decisions of public interest

    ...obligations to the employer – employer’s action was justified. [2014] NZEmpC 188 Harris v The Warehouse Ltd [Judgment of Chief Judge Colgan, 3 October 2014] UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL – NATURE OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT - REDUCTION FOR CONTRIBUTION - REINSTATEMENT– RECOMMENDATIONS TO EMPLOYER - security person dismissed for serious misconduct after complaint from customer – notes not kept from key interview- reliance on CCTV footage with no sound – other evidence available supported plaintif...

    Located in:

    1. Employment Court >
    2. Judgments >
    3. Decisions of public interest