Search Results

1. [2020] NZEmpC 34 Byrne v The New Zealand Transport Agency [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...that different event. 11 Employment Relations Act 2000, sch 2 cl 15. 12 Commissioner of Salford School v Campbell [2015] NZEmpC 186 at [27]. This proposition was not considered on the dismissed appeal: The Commissioner of Salford School v Campbell [2016] NZCA 126. 13 Stormont v Peddlethorpe Aitken Ltd [2017] NZEmpC 159 at [23]; Stevens v Hapag-Lloyd (NZ) Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 137, [2015] ERNZ 1080 at [18]−[21]; and Rodkiss v Carter...

2. Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Bill: Approval for Introduction [pdf, 462 KB]

   ...8y9t1vo72j 2018-07-19 11:51:38 7 earthquakes. The Tribunal will not consider issues involving on-sold properties. The Tribunal may join other potentially liable parties to the dispute where necessary. 49 Decisions of the Tribunal can be appealed on questions of fact and law to the High Court, with leave of the High Court. Second and subsequent appeals can be made on questions of law, with leave of the appellate Court. 50 Policyholders, insurers and the Earthquake Commission...

3. Vercoe v Savage - Otonga Whanau Trust [2021] Chief Judge's MB 838 (2021 CJ 838) [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...s 45 applications must be accompanied by proof of the flaw or error identified, either through the production of evidence not available or not known of at the time the order was made or through submissions on the law. [13] Finally, the Court of Appeal has recently confirmed, the power under s 44(1) falls into two parts:5 The first is the evaluative decision as to whether the order made was erroneous in fact and law because of any mistake or omission on the part of the Court or t...

4. [2021] NZEmpC 207 Martin v Solar Bright Ltd (in liquidation) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...Authority the challenge must specify the alleged errors of law or fact said to have been made or any question of law or fact to be resolved.5 [7] A challenge that does not seek a rehearing of the whole matter is conducted in the same way as an appeal.6 Mr Martin challenged specific parts of the determination he claimed contained errors of law or fact made by the Authority. [8] Mr Martin disputed the Authority’s findings or conclusions in paragraphs [68], [76], [77], [79] an...

5. [2021] NZREADT 48 - Kan (30 August 2021) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...at [57]. [23] Mr Kan sent the following email to the Tribunal on 12 July 2021 (following service by email on him of the Committee’s penalty submissions): To whom it may concern Re: enclosed information I am in no financial position to appeal this matter and may be put into an undesirable outcome. I make a plea for clemency and ask for name suppression as it will only cause distress and hurt to what is left of my immediate family. I truly and unreservedly apologise for t...

6. Von Tunzelman v Southland Regional Development Agency Ltd and Tracey Wayte Ltd (Strike-Out-Applications) [2022] NZHRRT 18 [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...[2021] NZHRRT 30 (Kropelnicki) at [25] to [34]. [9] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to strike out was also considered by the High Court in Williams v New Zealand Police [2021] 2 NZLR 292 (Williams) at [71] to [76]. While Williams is currently under appeal to the Court of Appeal, it remains a useful current summary of the principles applicable to the strike-out jurisdiction of this Tribunal. [10] The key principles from Lavender, Kropelnicki and Williams can be summarised as follows:...

7. Edwards v Ross - Waikite 3A (2023) 293 Waiariki MB 110 (293 WAR 110) [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...exercising rights of ownership.8 In this situation they are deemed to have been ousted, and the effected owner can sue for trespass by ouster. 6 Taueki v Horowhenua Sailing Club - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) Block [2014] Maori Appellate Court MB 60 (2014 APPEAL 60) at [15]-[16]. 7 At [16]. 8 Fredricsen v Hikuwai (2016) 143 Taitokerau MB 135 (143 TTK 135) at [20]. 293 Waiariki MB 115 [23] In Faulkner v Hoete, the Māori Appellate Court commented on the unique issues that arise...

8. Tamati v Hond - Paora Aneti 17 & 18 (2022) 446 Aotea MB 184 (446 AOT 184) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...application could succeed. 2 See for example Proprietors of Mangakino Township v Māori Land Court CA65/99, 16 June 1999; Mikaere – Toto v Te Reti B and C Residue Trust – Te Reti B and Te Reti C [2014] Māori Appellate Court MB 249 (2014 APPEAL 249); Slade – Parengarenga 3G (2014) 87 Taitokerau MB 46 (87 TTK 46); and Nikora v Tūhoe Te Uru Taumatua [2020] Māori Appellate Court MB 248 (2020 APPEAL 248). 3 Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvest Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR...

9. [2024] NZEmpC 48 Ugone v Star Moving Ltd [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...the person in default be fined a sum not exceeding $40,000: (e) order that the property of the person in default be sequestered. [15] In Peter Reynolds Mechanical Ltd t/a The Italian Job Service Centre v Denyer (Labour Inspector), the Court of Appeal referred to a range of factors to consider in assessing sanctions under s 140(6).6 [16] The factors referred to by the Court of Appeal are not exhaustive but include the nature of the default (that is whether it is deliberate or wil...

10. [2023] NZEmpC 95 VMR v Aviation Security Service Division of Civil Aviation Authority [pdf, 257 KB]

    ...reinstatement in the Authority. [43] Mr Caisley submitted that it is well established that the Court can determine Authority costs on a challenge, referring to Maheta v Skybus (NZ) Ltd (formerly Airbus Express Ltd).12 The dicta of the Court of Appeal in that judgment related to a case where the entire relationship problem had been placed before the Court by means of a challenge. The Court of Appeal said that in those circumstances, the Court could resolve the issue of costs in t...