Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 25 Sawyer v The Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington [pdf, 378 KB]

   ...relationship problems between him and Dr Sawyer were compromised in a record of settlement pursuant to s 149 of the Act signed on 24 July 2014. The complaint [6] A brief discussion of the background to this dispute, as disclosed by the pleadings and affidavits filed in anticipation of a hearing into a preliminary issue about the validity of the record of settlement, places this application for disclosure into context. Dr Sawyer was employed as a senior lecturer at the university on...

2. [2018] NZEnvC 135 Bunnings Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 3.7 MB]

   ...competitor of Bunnings, that HJSL's case should be struck out under section 279(4)(c), on the grounds that allowing its case to be taken further would othelWise be an abuse of the court's process. [4J The application is supported by the affidavit of B G Hutchinson dated 6 June 2018. [5J HJSL opposes' the application . The QLDC does not oppose Bunnings' primary order, if the court agrees with its Commissioners' finding at first instance (while reserving its...

3. [2024] NZEmpC 105 Watkins v Highmark Homes Ltd Interlocutory Judgment [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...being the subject of the litigation, have caused the plaintiff’s impecuniosity, that will count as a factor against security being granted.9 Analysis Is there reason to believe Ms Watkins will be unable to pay costs if unsuccessful? [9] In an affidavit, Ryan Hunt, a director of Highmark Homes, says that when Ms Watkins worked for the company, she had some financial difficulties which led to the company lending her money. He says there is no reason why her financial position w...

4. [2023] NZEnvC 159 Beachen v Auckland Council [pdf, 637 KB]

   ...had inspected the property prior to the issue of the abatement notice: Pieter Johannes Schutte, senior Compliance Officer;9 Brett Michael McGrath, Compliance Officer;10 and Paul Louis Northover, Team Leader Compliance.11 Mr McGrath had sworn an affidavit but was unable to appear at the hearing. He was not required for cross-examination. Mr Beachen gave evidence, confirming several statements he had provided to the Court.12 Is the tiny home a “structure”? “Structure...

5. [2024] NZEnvC 271 Auckland Council v Sharma [pdf, 321 KB]

   ...Council:51 I consider that it is implicit that the costs which the Court may award in any case are costs arising directly out of proceedings. That will, of course, include costs which arise out of preparation of application documents, supporting affidavits and the like. However, the costs of preliminary negotiations and dealings which pre- date the proceedings, in my view, are not the appropriate subject of a costs award. [50] Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council v Farm Holdings (4) Lt...

6. [2010] NZEmpC 124 NZ Language Centres Ltd (Formerly GEOS NZ Ltd) v Page [pdf, 15 KB]

   ...account pending further order of the Court. c) Within the 28 day period the plaintiff provide to the defendant and to the Court, financial information to support the opinion contained in Mr Hansen’s letter of 8 September, annexed to the second affidavit of Mr Mastoyo, affirmed on 24 August 2010. That will enable the Court to have before it material from which it can ascertain the current situation of the plaintiff both from a point of view of assets and liability, outstandi...

7. [2010] NZEmpC 106 Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd v Te Stroet [pdf, 15 KB]

   ...the matter after 31 August 2010, and because the parties are entitled to a prompt decision, on balance that period of just over two weeks is really the best that can be accommodated. [5] Mr Rooney has indicated that he wishes to submit further affidavit evidence about what is known as the DAS position, and I think in fairness that the plaintiff should be entitled to do that. It may be that the defendant also wishes to call more comprehensive evidence about the nature of the positi...

8. [2010] NZEmpC 17 Secretary for Justice v Dodd [pdf, 17 KB]

   ...the early days of s 103A, by calling a number of senior managers of similar employers to speculate how they would have dealt with misconduct, was unsuccessful: see X (subsequently White) v Auckland District Health Board. 1 [5] Having read the affidavits of the defendant’s intended witnesses, I do not consider that any of their evidence is designed to allow such inadmissible considerations to influence the Court. The affidavits are carefully and professionally crafted to avoid...

9. [2015] NZEmpC 163 Bay of Plenty DHB v Cliff [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...cross-challenge was not. It should have been filed within 28 days of the date on which the Authority’s determination was issued, namely by 9 July 2015. 4 [4] The extent of the delay is relevant to the grant of leave. It emerges from the affidavit filed in support of the application that the applicant was prepared to ‘live with’ the Authority’s determination, but decided against such a course when the respondent’s challenge was filed. That challenge is being pursued on...

10. [2013] NZEmpC 124 Superior Motor Cycles Ltd v Patterson [pdf, 76 KB]

    ...sought an extension of time. When an extension to 8 February 2013 was granted, the plaintiff discontinued the proceeding on 1 February without providing any evidence. This lack of documentation may be contrasted with the relatively extensive affidavit and submissions filed in support of the earlier application for a stay of execution. In his affidavit in support of the stay, the managing director of the plaintiff said that the company was in a precarious financial position. In t...