Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 101 Arkompat v Thai Chilli Co Ltd t/a Thai Chilli [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...Authority‟s determination, that does not explain adequately, or really at all, why it took a further five weeks after that to lodge a challenge. Indeed, it does indicate that both the applicant and his lawyer were then aware of the expiry of an appeal period and could be expected to have done something about it. [4] The applicant‟s case then falls back on his other ground, that of temporary impecuniosity. He says he had other debts which, presumably, he felt obliged to eithe...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 56 Sealord Group Ltd v Service & Food Workers’ Union Nga Ringa Tota [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...The hearing, therefore, consisted solely of submissions by counsel. Principles [5] The principles to be applied in construing and applying employment agreements in cases such as this were discussed in depth by this Court and by the Court of Appeal in New Zealand Tramways and Public Transport Employees Union 1 CA 217/09, 17 December 2009. Inc v Transportation Auckland Corporation Ltd 2 and NZ Meat Workers and Related Trades Un...

3. [2011] NZEmpC 62 Greymouth Dental Centre v Bowkett [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...v Duncan, 5 where 4 [2010] NZEmpC 24. 5 [2010] NZEmpC 36. the Court reiterated the important role that Calderbank offers play and cited Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly 6 where the Court of Appeal referred to the need for “steely responses” 7 by the Courts where claimants do not beat a Calderbank offer, as this was in the broader public interest. He also cited Gates v Air New Zealand Ltd 8 to the same effect. He submitte...

4. [2010] NZEmpC 112 Pacific Blue Employment & Crewing Ltd v B [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...full Court decision in Air New Zealand v V.3 I note also the decisions of Judge Travis in Butcher v OCS Ltd4 and Judge Shaw in Arthur D Riley & Co v Wood.5 In both cases the Court had regard to the decision of the United Kingdom Court of Appeal in Airbus UK Ltd v Webb6 which was to the effect that all past conduct, even that which had been the subject of expired warnings, might properly be taken into account by an employer in making a decision to dismiss. Taking these more re...

5. [2009] NZEmpC CC 18/09 Grey v Director-General of Conservation [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...One of these proceedings, in which she was the solicitor on the record for the plaintiff, was between a company known as Saxmere Co Ltd which, together with others, had brought proceedings against the Wool Board Disestablishment Co Ltd. On an appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, Ms Grey purported to add the Attorney-General as a new party to the proceeding. That came to the notice of the Solicitor-General whose communication about it to the defendant began the chai...

6. [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...

7. [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]...

8. [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...

9. 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...

10. 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...