Search Results

1. [2025] NZEmpC 90 Youtap Ltd v Johnston [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2000/0024/latest/link.aspx?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_employment+relations+act_resel_25_a&p=1&id=DLM61444#DLM61444 [45] In Rasier Operations BV v E Tū Inc, the Court of Appeal considered Bryson in the context of a s 6 claim brought by ride share Uber drivers.11 Again, the principal issue was whether those drivers were employees. In that context, the Court of Appeal adopted a two-stage inquiry:12 (a) First...

2. LCRO 158/2024 USP v FTC (30 June 2025) [pdf, 524 KB]

   ...scope of review [54] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:2 … 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 tha...

3. LCRO 151/2023 OA v HF and MT (22 July 2025) [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...section of this decision. Ms OA did not provide any comments of substance. Nature and scope of review [54] The High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:25 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It invol...

4. [2007] NZEmpC WC 29/07 Hawkins v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...New Zealand Fisheries Ltd v Napier City Council CA173/88 and CA199/88, 24 November 1989 as referred to in Harman & Co Solicitor Nominee Company v Secureland Mortgage Investments Nominees Ltd [1992] 2 NZLR 416, 421 5 [2002] 2 ERNZ 340 Appeal decisions in Commissioner of Police v Cartwright6 and Attorney-General v B7 to support this submission. However, these need to be read in the context of the relevant statutory scheme. [22] By s87 of the Police Act 1958, the personal...

5. [2010] NZEmpC 80 Willis v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...an employee’s actions the test in s 103A “does not give an unbridled license to substitute [the Authority’s and the Court’s] views for that of an employer”. He also cited Whanganui College Board of Trustees v Lewis,9 where the Court of Appeal held that the ascertainment of facts by an employer enquiring into allegations of serious misconduct where there are conflicting accounts does not involve any legal standard of proof. The employer: “acting reasonably, will be entit...

6. [2016] NZEmpC 2 Northern Amalgamated Workers Union of NZ v Golden Bay Cement [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...22. 27 New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union v Taylor Preston Ltd, above note 22. 28 New Zealand Meat Workers and Related Trades Union v Taylor Preston Ltd, above note 22. [41] Taylor Preston unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal on a question of law, namely, as Ms Muir expressed it, "whether the preference was unlawful if the employer's subjective reason did not involve favouring non-union members." On this issue, the Court of Appeal stated:...

7. MLC 2018 April Outstanding OCR Applications [pdf, 377 KB]

   ...164-165 and 90 Aotea 81-82 dated 30 April 1999 and 11 December 1998 - Application to Chief Judge A20180001430 58/93 Lawrence Niao Matata Parish Lot 39A 2A - and charging orders made at 176 Waiariki 226-243 on 30 November 2017 - Notice of Appeal A20180001438 58/93 Rae Beverly Adlam Matata Parish 39A 2A - and a charging order made at 176 Waiariki MB 226 on 30 November 2017 - Notice of Appeal A20180001563 45/93 Lindsay Katene Thomas Phillip Meads also known as Kereru...

8. LCRO 18/2017 LK v NM [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...in that they failed to particularise the substance of Mr LK’s objection to the decision. [15] Mr LK’s application is reflective of applications commonly filed in the criminal jurisdiction, where lawyers initially identify as their grounds of appeal, complaint that the Court has erred in fact or law, or failed to take into account relevant considerations. 4 [16] Whilst that approach may provide lawyers working in the criminal jurisdiction, with opportunity and time to reflect...

9. Jenkins v Matauri X Incorporation - Matauri X Incorporation (2005) 101 Whangārei MB 100 (101 WH 100) [pdf, 4.8 MB]

   ...2004 to which Ihe Regislrar's report of 11 February 2004 had been presenled, as direcled by Ihe Court on 3 December 2003. He also reported Ihat Ihe High Court had upheld Ihe validily of Bridgecorp's mortgage. He had instrucled counsel 10 appeallhal decision in Ihe Court of Appeal. Final submissions were received from the parties, shareholders and members of the Commillee of Management. Mr Henry was direcled 10 file his final report by Ihe end of April 2004. This was received o...

10. LCRO 75/2016 XN and WN v VO (25 February 2019) [pdf, 242 KB]

    ...scope of review [51] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court, which said of the process of review under the Act:3 … 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 tha...