Search Results

1. [2007] NZEmpC WC 1/07 Hunter v National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...entitlement to subsidy and may affect elections he is entitled to make in such circumstances, which may have substantial on flow consequences. Unfortunately, as Ms Shaw submitted, the evidence on such matters is not contained in Mr Hunter’s affidavit and consists of statements Mr Crotty made from the bar. However, as a matter of commonsense, the effect on Mr Hunter and his family of his sick pay ceasing will be grave. NIWA’s submission to the contrary strikes me as being some...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 169 Kim v Thermosash Commercial Ltd [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...summary, pleaded facts are assumed to be true. The cause of action complained about must clearly be untenable. The jurisdiction is to be used sparingly and only in clear cases. Striking out a claim is a draconian step. The Court may receive affidavit evidence but will not attempt to resolve genuinely disputed issues of fact and will generally 1 Couch v Attorney-General [2008] 3 NZLR 725 (SC); Attorney-General v Prince &Ga...

3. [2010] NZEmpC 41 Shortland v Alexander Construction Co Ltd [pdf, 38 KB]

   ...with a brief of evidence from Dr Jolly, the plaintiff’s general practitioner. Mr Webster indicated that he did not wish to cross-examine this witness and he was not present. I invited Mr Petherick to provide this evidence in the form of an affidavit but, understandably, he was unable to arrange that today. As the evidence which Dr Jolly would have given was largely corroborative of what the plaintiff herself said and her evidence in those respects did not significantly alter un...

4. [2010] NZEmpC 78 SFWU v Rendezvous Hotels (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 39 KB]

   ...best it can, where the overall justice lies between the parties. This is a broad discretionary consideration on applicable principles. [3] Because the application has been heard urgently and the only evidence before the Court is on untested affidavits and because full legal submissions have not been able to be developed, the judgment does not determine the question between the parties finally or authoritatively. That said, the reality in employment relations litigation is that i...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 94 Gini v Literacy Training Ltd [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...that he had lied in his evidence before the Court. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. In the present case there is nothing in the Authority’s determination that would support a finding of relevant impropriety against Ms Sturgess and no affidavit evidence has been filed on the issue. [24] Turning to the second criteria referred to in Kidd, the Court of Appeal accepted that where a closely held company is a litigant, those who control it “necessarily control its condu...

6. [2009] NZEmpC AC 34A/09 NZ Dairy Workers Union v Open Country Cheese Company Ltd [pdf, 37 KB]

   ...on 23 September, counsel again sought urgency and agreed, in a telephone conference on 24 September, that the two matters should be heard together and that the evidence for one should be evidence for the other. Evidence was filed in the form of affidavits, with cross-examination of three deponents. Relevant legislation [14] The following sections of the Employment Relations Act were referred to by counsel in their submissions. Part 5 collective bargaining 31 Object of this...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 27 Hall v Dionex Pty Ltd [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...criteria are met the Court is required to grant leave: no residual discretion exists. I do not accept that submission, for reasons set out below. The facts [5] The facts, as far as they can be discerned at this early stage, can be drawn from the affidavits filed in support of, and in opposition to, the application for leave. They can be summarised as follows. [6] The applicant commenced employment with Dionex Pty Limited (the respondent) on 24 May 2004, initially in the posit...

8. A Q v Mudaliar [2015] NZIACDT 76 (23 June 2015) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...of complaint; which contains allegations, and references to the documentary record that supports the allegations. [10] The directions told Mr Mudaliar that he was entitled to take legal advice and allowed him a further 15 working days to provide affidavits, submissions and to apply for an oral hearing. Mr Mudaliar requested additional time and, on 13 May 2015, the Tribunal allowed him until 18 May 2015 to take the steps required or apply for an adjournment. Mr Mudaliar took no steps and...

9. R. Singh v Kumar [2016] NZIACDT 14 (23 March 2016) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...grounds the Registrar considered to have potential support. The responses [18] The complainant did not file a statement of reply, but was not required to do so if he agreed with the contents of the Statement of Complaint. [19] Mr Kumar filed an affidavit answering the complaint. [19.1] Mr Kumar said the Statement of Complaint did not set out what the complainant told him. He said he discussed the complainant’s ability to obtain an Employer Supplementary Form, and that the complaina...

10. MacDonald v MacDonald - Wairau Blk.XII Sec. 6C 2C (2014) 27 Te Waipounamu MB 68 (27 TWP 68) [pdf, 141 KB]

    ...ownership, a matter which is a continuing source of contention between the brothers. There was some dispute as to whether Phillip has use or control of the bare portion of the block at the rear, but that issue is not determinative here. [10] In his affidavit dated 24 May 2014 Brigham deposed that: “I have paid for the vineyard development on the subject land. If it is to be partitioned then that would destroy the vineyard value of the land because a partition would require me to r...