Search Results

1. [2007] NZEmpC AC 62/07 Taylor & Anor v von Tunzelman [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...serious grounds. Even if I were to conclude, after receiving the Authority’s report under s181, that the plaintiffs have not conducted themselves in accordance with the statutory standards in that venue, this would not deny them the opportunity to appeal but would, rather, constrain the nature of the appeal that they might bring. [23] Although I am conscious of Mr von Tunzelman’s now bitter complaint about the delays that his proceedings have met to recover what he considers is...

2. [2012] NZEmpC 190 ABC01 Ltd (formerly Primary Heart Care Ltd) v Dell [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...[6] The same or similar arguments as those advanced by Mr Wallace have been rejected by the Courts in New Zealand on numerous previous occasions. A summary of the relevant authorities can be found in R v McKinnon. 6 The decisions of the Court of Appeal in Knowles v Police, 7 R v Mitchell, 8 R v Harawira 9 and R v Toia 10 can be cited in this context. An example of the dicta consistently set out in these cases is the following passage from R v Harawira, per Chambers J: [8]...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 212 Go Bus Transport Ltd v Hellyer interlocutory [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...to the claim for family passes, had not been considered. 5 2 At [52]. 3 At [57]-[58]. 4 At [59]. 5 At [67]. d) The Authority relied on the following dicta of the Court of Appeal in Andy Nathan v C3 Limited: 6 [35] … We also consider that in terms of s 103A a fair and reasonable employer could not justify dismissal if the decision made was discriminatory in terms of s 104. … [37] The specific pro...

4. Horan - Hiwarau C (2015) 118 Waiariki MB 25 (118 WAR 25) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...report notes that it appears three of the four 4 Hammond - Whangawehi 1B3H1 (2007) 34 Gisborne Appellate MB 185 (34 APGS 185), Whaanga v Niania - Anewa Block [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428) and Whaanga v Smith - Anewa Block [2013] Maori Appellate Court MB 45 (2013 APPEAL 45) 5 Ibid. 118 Waiariki MB 30 owners died without issue and as such no further details could be obtained. The fourth owner, Hone T...

5. Senadipathi & Xavier v Sampang [2015] NZIACDT 43 (20 April 2015) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...complainant’s application, as the salary was below the industry standard and Mr Sampang had not made genuine attempts to recruit New Zealand citizens or residents. [5.7] As a result, the complainant was in New Zealand unlawfully, and had 42 days to lodge an appeal, if she chose to do so. She continued to work for Mr Sampang, and he told 3 her that was not a problem. On 16 May 2013, Mr Sampang submitted a request for a work visa for the complainant under section 61 of the...

6. Keenan – The Estate of Patricia June Graham (2015) 45 Takitimu MB 212 (45 TKT 212) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...rehearing, the court may affirm its former determination, or may vary or annul that determination, and may exercise any jurisdiction that it could have exercised on the original hearing. (6) When a rehearing has been granted, the period allowed for an appeal to the Maori Appellate Court shall not commence to run until the rehearing has been disposed of by a final order of the court. [12] In Henare v Māori Trustee – Parengarenga 3G the Māori Appellate Court discussed the appro...

7. CAC 20006 v Wallace [2013] NZREADT 81 [pdf, 36 KB]

   ...Sime had acted for the property company in bringing about an on-sale of the property for $92,000. [7] The Board held that Mr Sime had placed his objective of achieving sales above his duty to his principal, the original owner of the property. On appeal, the High Court held that this finding nevertheless fell “far short” of establishing the requisite negative character traits to permit orders to be made by the Board. [8] Also relevant is the more recent decision of Davis v The Real...

8. Guidelines: Counsel for subject person - Personal and Property Rights Act [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...available to carry out the tasks (time and geographical availability). (i) Procedures necessary, that is, mediation; orders made on the papers; directions for hearing; hearing. (j) Review date. (k) Whether orders need to be suspended pending an appeal (s 82). (l) Whether fees for counsel for the subject person should be paid out of the estate or out of the Consolidated Fund. 4.6 Be present for service, if considered appropriate. Note that it is not appropriate for counsel to serv...

9. Meek v Ministry of Social Development [2013] NZHRRT 28 [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...grounds listed in s 21 of that Act. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to complaints that the Ministry failed to properly process or consider an application for financial assistance. That is the function of the Social 2 Security Appeal Authority. Mr Meek did in fact commence a review under the Social Security Act of the decision in issue in this case but that review was subsequently withdrawn on 7 December 2011. In these circumstances there is no need to set out in de...

10. CAC20003 v Santipongchai [2015] NZREADT 11 [pdf, 177 KB]

    ...family financially; also, by such work he could accumulate financial resources for religious missionary work; or whether he should simply leave the real estate industry and move into some other area of employment. [13] In any case, the defendant appeals to this Tribunal for mercy and adds “I know what I did was wrong, I will do my best to make up for it by repaying at the earliest time I can, I will never go and do the wrong again …”. [14] The defendant also seems to be addi...