Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 132 Kaipara v CHH Ltd [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...upheld the jurisdiction to make an order for security, citing Watson v Fell 2 and Koia v Attorney- General in respect of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Justice. 3 He also cited A S McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd, 4 where the Court of Appeal stated that the exercise of the discretion whether to order security should not be fettered by applying any principles but instead the Court must assess the circumstances of the particular case on the basis that access to the Courts f...

2. [2010] NZEmpC 145 Young v Bay of Plenty DHB [pdf, 32 KB]

   ...prepare a challenge to the Authority’s determination or, alternatively, that he instructed his solicitor to file a challenge within time. There is no suggestion that either Mr Young or his solicitor was unaware of, or mistaken about, the 28 day appeal period. There is no explanation as to the impossibility or even difficulty of communication with Mr Young while he was attending a conference in Israel. Commonsense dictates that in such circumstances it may generally be expected...

3. [2011] NZEmpC 9 Naturex Limited v Rogers [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...that the challenge should never have been filed. 1 AA 320/10, 12 July 2010. [6] In response, Mr Drake submitted that in terms of step one of the “two-step approach” outlined by the Court of Appeal in Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd, 2 “the defendant‟s costs were not reasonably incurred.” Mr Drake acknowledged the general principle that costs should follow the event and be awarded to the successful party but he submitted th...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 168 Lawson v NZ Transport Agency interlocutory [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...they are ultimately awarded against him. Indeed this is his explanation for not satisfying the costs award made against him in the Authority. [7] There is a need to balance the interests of the plaintiff and the defendant. As the Court of Appeal observed in A S McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd: 5 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to meet an adverse award of costs. That must be taken as contemplating also that an order...

5. Wallace - Section 8 B no 1 Block IV Waitara Survey District (2015) 337 Aotea MB 61 (337 AOT 61) [pdf, 258 KB]

   ...applicants to Keri Jane Wallace and Jonathan Herman (“the purchaser”). 1 Keri Wallace is the granddaughter of Ellen Wallace. I also confirmed that the status of the land was to remain Māori freehold land. That order has not been subject to appeal or review. [3] The applicants now seek to change the status of the block to General land in order to obtain finance to enable the sale of the block to proceed. According to the application the TSB Bank will currently lend the purc...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 62 Casey v Sensi Merivale Limited [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...47. [3] The plaintiff seeks an order for indemnity (solicitor/client) costs incurred by her in the proceedings in both the Authority and in this Court. She acknowledges the constraints on awards of indemnity costs imposed by the Court of Appeal in Bradley v Westpac Banking Corporation. 3 The Court of Appeal said in that case that indemnity costs “are exceptional and require exceptionally bad behaviour” and proceeded to set out some non-exhaustive categories of circums...

7. [2014] NZEmpC 234 Mega Wreckers Ltd v Taafuli [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...organisation then withdrew the employment proposal altogether. The employee failed in his claim before the Employment Tribunal, essentially on the ground that as the starting date had never been agreed to there was no contract of employment. 17 On appeal, however, Judge Finnigan concluded that a contract of employment had come into existence and his Honour awarded compensation in the sum of $6,000 for humiliation and injury to feelings. 18 [18] The authority Mr Bennett relie...

8. CAC302 v Mairs [2016] NZREADT 15 [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...appellants is compensation for straight market loss. This kind of monetary award was discussed in the decision of Quin v The Real Estate Agents Authority [2012] NZHC 3557 where the High Court (per Brewer J) held that committees (or the Tribunal on appeal) cannot order licensees to pay complainants money as compensation for errors or omission (compensatory damages) under s 93(1)(f) of the Act. Licensees can only be ordered to do something or take actions to rectify or “put right” an...

9. CAC407 v Towers [2016] NZREADT 24 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...proceedings. [11] In Hart v Auckland Standards Committee No. 1 and New Zealand Law Society [2013] NZHC 83 The NZ Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal declined Mr Hart’s application for an adjournment based on his claim that he was unwell. On appeal the High Court said at paragraph [23] that the Court must balance the reason for the non-attendance, the impact upon Mr Hart in proceeding in his absence, and his right to a fair hearing against the reasons for his absence. [12]...

10. Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 38 [pdf, 76 KB]

    ...further or additional evidence on defects and damage. These issues have already been determined and a substantive decision issued. If Mr Holyoake disagreed with the decisions in that determination the appropriate step for him to take was to appeal that decision, as he has done. [13] We are still of that opinion. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to re-open the issues of damage and defects when a final decision on those issues has already been made. While Dr Spears...