Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 159 Smith Crane & Construction Ltd v Hall [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...applying schs 2 and 3 of the High Court Rules (HCR). This Court is of course not bound to apply those Schedules, but from time to time they can be useful when considering the amounts 7 Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305 (CA), Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ 438 (CA); Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly [2004] 1 ERNZ 172 (CA); and Belsham v Ports of Auckland Ltd [2014] NZCA 206, [2014] ERNZ 66. 8 Wills...

2. Jackman v CAC 10010 & Cussen & Hale [2011] NZREADT 29 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...registered architect. [20] We are satisfied that there is no evidence of any intention of the licensees to mislead any member of the public. [21] We consider that Mr Tatton is literally and technically an architect who works as such and holds a university degree in architecture. [22] It is not correct to assert that a person cannot in fact be an “architect” simply because legislation provides that they cannot call themselves an architect. 6 [23] If Parliament...

3. Belle v Fogi Ltd (Strike-Out Application) [2019] NZHRRT 7 [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...vexatious; or (d) is otherwise an abuse of process. … [25] Section 115A mirrors r 15.1 of the High Court Rules, which, until s 115A was inserted in November 2018, had guided the approach of the Tribunal to applications for strike-out: Mackrell v Universal College of Learning HC Palmerston North CIV-2005-485- 802, 17 August 2005 at [48]. [26] The principles to be applied are clear and well established. They are set out by Richardson P in Attorney-General v Prince and Gardner [1998] 1...

4. Kern v Chief Executive Ministry of Social Development (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 50 [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...Tribunal may at any time dismiss any proceedings brought under section 92B or section 92E if it is satisfied that they are trivial, frivolous, or vexatious or are not brought in good faith. Statement of claim without particulars [16] In Mackrell v Universal College of Learning HC Palmerston North CIV-485-802, 17 August 2005 at [48] this provision was described by Wild J as “a wide discretionary power”: [48] Thus, the Tribunal has a wide discretionary power to strike out or dismiss...

5. WXY v Attorney-General (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 37 [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...(NZPHDA). It is submitted that the allegations in the statement of claim do not, and cannot be re-pleaded to give rise to an arguable discrimination claim on the basis of family status. Jurisdiction to strike out – principles [2] In Mackrell v Universal College of Learning High Court Palmerston North CIV2005-485- 802, 17 August 2005 at [48] Wild J held that the Tribunal has a wide discretionary power to strike out or to dismiss a proceeding brought before it and the exercise of this...

6. [2018] NZEmpC 159 X v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 365 KB]

   ...Liabilities, possibly because it was prepared at an earlier time than the balance sheet. [25] There are cases which have led to either no award, or a reduced award, of costs based on the financial position of the liable party but that approach is not universal. In Tomo v Checkmate Precision Cutting Tools Ltd Judge Inglis (as she then was) said:8 The approach to financial circumstances raises a number of issues, including the extent to which the opposing party’s interests can...

7. Te Manutukutuku Issue 14 [pdf, 2.6 MB]

   ...position as senior research officer. Cathy's final task was the completion of a background report on the Tuwharetoa te Atua Reretahi ki Kawerau raupatu claim. Tony Tumoana of Te Atiawa has left us to complete his arts degree at Victoria University. Tony has been an administrator for the Waitangi Tribunal since the early days of 1987. Jane Luiten leaves the Tribunal, after nearly two years of research work, to travel to Europe. Jane will be remembered for her assistance wi...

8. [2022] NZEmpC 178 UXK v Talent Propeller Ltd [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...Appeal judgment of Curtis v Commonwealth of Australia where the issue was whether a successful party funded by legal aid could recover scale costs or some lesser amount.5 [12] For the purposes of that case, the Court said:6 4 Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305 (CA). 5 Curtis v Commonwealth of Australia [2019] NZCA 126. 6 At [22]. The quantum [of costs] should be according to the Court of Appeal scale. Costs should be scale costs...

9. [2023] NZEmpC 210 Robertson v IDEA Services Ltd [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...Anderson’s criticisms of the costs application. IDEA Services claimed for each of the steps taken by the parties during the litigation without any adjustment up or down. The effect of Mr Anderson’s submission is to invite a 5 See Victoria University of Wellington v Alton-Lee [2001] ERNZ 305 (CA) at [48]. review of the time actually taken by IDEA Services’ counsel as if that adjustment ought to be made merely because Mr Anderson’s own attendances were less intensive...

10. [2022] NZEnvC 212 Kristin School Charitable Trust v Auckland Council [pdf, 7.3 MB]

    Kristin School Charitable Trust v Auckland Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2022] NZEnvC 212 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under clause 14 of the First Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN KRISTIN SCHOOL CHARITABLE TRUST (ENV-2022-AKL-000107) Appellant AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Respondent AND BEI GROUP LIMITED Applicant Court: Environment Judge MJL Dickey sitting alone under...