Search Results

1. [2007] NZEmpC CC 28/07 B & D Doors Ltd v Hamilton [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...those prevailing prior to the enactment of the Employment Relations Amendment Act (No 2) 2004 and, in particular, the enactment of what is now s103A of the principal Act. [6] The relevant principles were conveniently summarised by the Court of Appeal in W & H Newspapers Ltd v Oram [2000] 2 ERNZ 448. The onus is on the employer to justify the dismissal. What the employer must do is to satisfy the Court that the decision to dismiss was one which a reasonable and fair employer...

2. [2008] NZEmpC AC 24/08 Panovski v Marine Trimmers and All Awnings 2004 Ltd [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...between the conduct complained of and the personal grievance and third, a determination of the culpability or blameworthiness of that conduct. He also cited Ark Aviation v Newton [2001] ERNZ 133 where, at paragraph [42], the Court of Appeal stated: In our view, matters of which an employer was aware at the time which, directly or indirectly, impacted on its decision to dismiss may be shown to be actions contributing to the situation, or fault on the part of the employee...

3. Top Energy Ltd - Whakataha Z1C (2015) 104 Taitokerau MB 108 (104 TTK 108) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...non-access easements, such as the present electricity easements. I addressed the Act’s approach to this issue in light of its lack of express guidance in Smith - Ohuirua No.2. 5 My approach was upheld by the Māori Appellate Court in the subsequent appeal. 6 [49] Nevertheless, Mr Mathias submitted that the Smith decisions should not be followed, were not correct, were obiter and, if not obiter, were determined per incurium (through want of care or ignorance) as there was no r...

4. CAC 20003 v Jhagroo [2014] NZREADT 8 [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...Assessment Committee of the Authority determined to take no further action on a complaint against Mr Jhagroo (“the licensee”) from Sylvester and Tafadzwa Kamhara (“the complainants”) as prospective property purchasers. However, the latter appealed successfully to us against that decision to take no action and we directed that a charge should be laid by the Authority; refer Kamhara v REAA [2012] NZREADT 9. [2] Mr Jhagroo now faces two charges of misconduct under ss 73(a) and...

5. Koria & Anor v Johnson & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 14 [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...those carried out on his behalf) were conducted in accordance with the practices at the time. [23] Mr Steele on behalf of the claimants submitted that (earlier, in 1973) in McLaren Maycroft & Co v Fletcher Development Co Ltd2 the Court of Appeal addressed ‘common practice’ in the building context. Richmond J stated that the court is not necessarily bound by such evidence. It must retain its own freedom to conclude that the general practice of a particular profession fa...

6. LCRO 109/2015 RKX v SDC [pdf, 386 KB]

   ...scope of review [27] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:25 … the power of review conferred upon Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that...

7. NQE v Tan [2013] NZIACDT 37 (13 June 2013) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...Philippines. [2] The complainant approached the practice where Ms Tan works, and entered an agreement with Ms Tan to provide immigration services. The agreement referred to lodging an expression of interest, a residence application, and potentially an appeal in the event of an adverse decision. [3] The complainant was not satisfied with how Ms Tan’s practice was conducted. He said: [3.1] The agreement he had with Ms Tan did not set out the arrangements between them in a satisfactory...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 012 Mt Wellington Highway Ltd & Jaafar Holdings Ltd v Auckland Council [pdf, 879 KB]

   ...and expenses incurred as a direct result of the Council's actions. On that basis he awarded the objectors approximately two-thirds of their total costs. [31] The earlier substantive decision of the Environment Court was the subject of an appeal by the Council to the High Court,4 which Baragwanath J allowed, declaring that B J & K L Wall v Rodney De W 119/97 (Env Ct) e P Brunei v Waitakere ee, A 134/2006 (Env Ct) Waitakere ee v e P Brunei, High Court, Auckland, CIV-2006-404...

9. MacGregor v Craig (Second Interim Non-Publication Order) [2015] NZHRRT 40 [pdf, 324 KB]

   ...s 95 to make any interim order necessary in the interests of justice to preserve the position of the parties. [37] It is now intended to address first the general principles to be applied in an application under s 95 and second, recent Court of Appeal decisions in which the open justice principle is considered in the context of name suppression applications in civil proceedings. INTERIM ORDERS UNDER SECTION 95 – PRINCIPLES [38] The relevant principles applicable to interim order a...

10. [2016] NZEmpC 123 Henderson v Nelson Marlborough District Health Board [pdf, 229 KB]

    ...happened at the meetings of 22 August 2014 and 11 September 2014, and the consequences of what happened. There is no disagreement about the legal test to apply. [42] In Auckland Shop Employees Union v Woolworths (New Zealand) Ltd the Court of Appeal described three non-exhaustive situations where constructive dismissal may occur: 3 1. An employer gives an employee an option of resigning or being dismissed; 2. An employer has followed a course of conduct with the deliberat...