Search Results

1. [2025] NZEmpC 117  Tangohau v Maiava-Perez [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...time is reasonable in the circumstances. The statement 3 Insolvency Act 2006, s 101. 4 Insolvency Act 2006, sch 1(b). of defence was less than a page and a half in length, as was each of the applications, notice of opposition and affidavit filed. [9] Applying the guideline scale on a Category 1 Band A basis would entitle the defendant to $3,339.00. This is calculated as follows: Commencement of defence 0.5 days Filing two interlocutory applications 0.6 days Fil...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 90 Pacific Insulation Ltd v Lagera & Anor [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...varied as follows: (a) The respondents are to provide the documents described in paragraphs [9] and [10] of the freezing orders by 5 pm on Monday, 27 May 2024, if they have not already done so.4 (b) The respondents are to file and serve their affidavit listing documents referred to in paragraphs [9] and [10] of the freezing orders by 5 pm on Friday, 31 May 2024. (c) The applicant is to file its statement of problem in the Employment Relations Authority by 5 pm on Monday, 10 June...

3. Far North District Council v Maihi - Okahu 3B2B2 (2014) 91 Taitokerau MB 284 (91 TTK 284) [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   ...block and had not undertaken any consultation with the owners of the correct title, Okahu 3B2B2D. [15] Prior to the judicial conference Mr Mahoney filed an application to strike out and dismiss the roadway application together with a supporting affidavit. In his affidavit Mr Mahoney set out his wife’s connection to the land (at that time she had yet to succeed to her Okahu land interests) and his own efforts to deal with the Council in relation to the Council’s easements and...

4. [2017] NZEmpC 146 Yu v Zespri International Ltd [pdf, 767 KB]

   ...confidential; and d) whether certain documents are relevant to the issues in the proceedings. [3] The Court is also required to consider whether it should make a verification order requiring a suitable person from Zespri to swear an affidavit of documents, thereby confirming on oath its statements that particular documents should not be disclosed, and the reasons for this. [4] Although there was originally a claim that some documents were the subject of either a common...

5. INZ (Calder) v Shearer [2019] NZIACDT 41 (19 June 2019) [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...2017) and supporting documents. [80] The complainant sent a statement of reply (2 November 2017) with further documents. [81] The Tribunal received from Mr Laurent a statement of reply (5 October 2017), a memorandum (20 October 2017) and an affidavit sworn by Ms Shearer (20 October 2017). [82] Neither the complainant nor the adviser requests an oral hearing. Counsel’s memorandum [83] Mr Laurent accepts that Ms Shearer’s handling of the visa applications shows a la...

6. G v EQC [2021] CEIT-2019-0056 [pdf, 874 KB]

   ...September 2010; and (b) CLM/2011/112843 – 22 February 2011. [14] EQC made various payments to Mr G arising from these claims as follows: (a) $16,230 (less an excess of $220.04) for the September 2010 earthquake; 1 Mr Day’s affidavit, exhibits “TD-C” and “TD-D” (b) $1,513.29 for urgent works and $4,260.90 for clean heat works arising from the September 2010 earthquake; (c) $150.00 paid to Christchurch City Council; and (d) $59,536.54 (less an...

7. [2007] NZEmpC WC 32A/07 Port of Napier Ltd v Maritime Union of NZ Inc [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...tends to confirm that the crane drivers’ resistance to participating in stevedore training was motivated, at least in material part, by a belief that the refusal was justified on the grounds of safety or health. The more comprehensive affidavit evidence now filed tends to confirm that there are and were reasonable grounds for that belief. There may, of course, be mixed motives but I do not think it is strongly arguable, on the evidence seen by me, that there was no reaso...

8. [2010] NZEmpC 103 Coy v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...Ms McKechnie dealt with the scope of the plaintiff’s proposed evidence in reply. She criticised two of the briefs of that evidence as being too wide ranging. Counsel invoked the position in the High Court where the High Court Rules do allow affidavits in reply although not, at least expressly, briefs of evidence in reply. Ms McKechnie relied on the judgment of the High Court in McDougall v Council of CIT6 which addressed then r 510, now r 9.76. Counsel submitted that, referrin...

9. [2006] NZEmpC AC 53/06 Graham v Crestline Pty Ltd [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...between the parties have been settled so that Mr Graham should be precluded from pursuing them. The status of concurrent Western Australian Supreme Court proceedings is not for determination in this case. [6] It is necessary to examine in detail the affidavit evidence (and some cross- examination) of the three principal protagonists involved in this aspect of the case, Warren Reynolds, Crestline’s chairman director of Perth, Western Australia; Mr Donald Graham (the plaintiff), a...

10. Welsh - Taiharuru 4C3 (2012) 2012 Chief Judges MB 398 (2012 CJ 398) [pdf, 178 KB]

    ...application from the alienor, either in person or in any other manner authorised by the rules of the Court.” [24] Rule 115(5) of the Māori Land Court Rules 1994 provided that evidence had to be given by the alienor in person or “by way of affidavit or declaration or evidence taken by a Registrar acting pursuant to Rule 51 of these Rules.” [25] These provisions are intended to ensure that the Court is satisfied that an owner understands the proposed transaction. They may se...